Judgment S.N.Aggarwal, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant against the judgment dated 17/20.3.1992 vide which the accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced for having committed offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 304-B, IPC. 2. Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi was married to Sushil Kumar-accused appellant on 9.11.1989. She was resident of Kashipur in Uttar Pradesh. She committed suicide on 1.3.1990 and the present case was got registered by jarbhajan Singh (father of Paramjit Kaur deceased) on 19.4.1990. 3. According to the prosecution case, Pritam Singh, father, Smt. Suraj Kumari, mother, Rakesh Kumar and Gopal Singh, brothers of Sushil Kumar and he himself started harassing Paramjit Kaur on account of dowry demand as they were not happy with the quantum of dowry given to her at the time of her marriage by her parents. They raised the demand of a car from the parents of Paramjit Kaur and started harassing and pressing her to meet it out. On 22.12.1989, Sushil Kumar accused-appellant along with his wife Smt. Paramjit Kaur went to the parental house of the deceased at village Chanderpura in Bihar where Harbhajan Singh (father of the deceased) was transferred. They stayed there for about a week. Paramjit Kaur informed her father about the demand of car by the accused. Harbhajan Singh pleaded his inability to do so as he was merely employed as a Foreman. However, he offered to arrange a scooter for the accused-appellant. The accused and his wife returned from village Chanderpura on 28.12.1989. Thereafter, Harbhajan Singh did not receive any letter from his daughter Paramjit Kaur and he asked his son Gurdev Singh to go to the house of the accused-appellant to enquire about the welfare of his daughter. Accordingly, Gurdev Singh reached Kalkaji in New Delhi, where the accused and his wife were living. From there he came to know that they have shifted to a residential flat in Sector 23, Faridabad and Gurdev Singh, accordingly, went to Faridabad. He stayed there for few days and returned to village Chanderpura and informed his father Harbhajan Singh that the accused, his parents and family members were demanding a car in dowry. On this Harbhajan Singh wrote a letter to the accused-appellant on 16.2.1990 assuring him to purchase a scooter for him. 4. On 3.3.1990 Harbhajan Singh received a telegram from Sushil Kumar accused-appellant that Paramjit Kaur had died. On this Harbhajan Singh wrote a letter to the accused-appellant on 16.2.1990 assuring him to purchase a scooter for him. 4. On 3.3.1990 Harbhajan Singh received a telegram from Sushil Kumar accused-appellant that Paramjit Kaur had died. Similar messages were received by Rattan Singh, grand-father of the deceased and other relatives. They reached Faridabad. The dead body of Paramjit Kaur was consigned to flames; Harbhajan Singh suspected foul play in the death of his daughter Paramjit Kaur. He wanted a case to be registered but the police officials refused to do so. Then Harbhajan Singh met the Superintendent of Police, Faridabad and filed a complaint dated 19.4.1990 on the basis of which the present case was registered. 5. The case was investigated and the challan was presented against the accused-appellant, his two brothers Rakesh Kumar and Gopal Singh, his mother Suraj Kumari and father Pritam Singh. 6. Charges under Sections 304-B, 498-A, IPC were framed against the appellant and the co-accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Sohan Lal, Draftsman as PW 1, Dr. Naresh Gupta, Medical Officer as PW 2. He had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Paramjit Kaur on 2.3.1990 at about 2 p.m. The prosecution also examined HC Vijay Singh as PW 3, Constable Ram Singh as PW 4, Rattan Singh (grand-father of the deceased) as PW 5, Nirmal Singh (uncle of the deceased) as PW 6, Raj Kumar, photographer as PW 7, Harbhajan Singh (father of the deceased) as PW 8, Gurdev Singh (brother of the deceased) as PW 9 and S.I. Ishwar Singh as PW 10. The prosecution closed its evidence. 8. In his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.PC, the accused-appellant claimed to be innocent and pleaded that he was running the business of photography in Kalkaji, New Delhi. His marriage with Paramjit Kaur was love marriage. She was a member of Sikh community, while he hailed from Hindu family. The father and brother of Paramjit kaur were not agreeable to this marriage. However, Paramjit Kaur prevailed over her father and other relatives. He had not asked for any dowry. He had purchased a house worth Rs. 4 lac in Faridabad for keeping Paramjit Kaur happy However, Harbhajan Singh and Gurdev Singh did not reconcile to this marriage. He had taken Paramjit Kaur to Chanderpura in December 1989. However, Paramjit Kaur prevailed over her father and other relatives. He had not asked for any dowry. He had purchased a house worth Rs. 4 lac in Faridabad for keeping Paramjit Kaur happy However, Harbhajan Singh and Gurdev Singh did not reconcile to this marriage. He had taken Paramjit Kaur to Chanderpura in December 1989. On 28.2.1990, he was away to Bagpar in U.P. to shoot a video film of marriage. Paramjit Kaur ended her life by hanging herself from a hook of the ceiling fan by using her chunni as rope. He found the same after he returned from Bagpar on 1.3.1990. The police was informed immediately. Telegram was also sent to her father. Messages were also sent to the grand father of Paramjit Kaur at Kashipur. The police had recorded the statement of his neighbours. Postmortem examination was also performed on the dead body of Paramjit Kaur, statement of Harbhajan Kaur. They came under some pressure and on 19.4.1990 got a false case registered against him and his parents and brothers. 9. In defence, the accused examined SI Rattan Singh as DW 1 and A.N. Narula as DW 2. The defence evidence was closed. 10. On the basis of this evidence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the brothers, mother and father of the accused-appellant. However, the accused-appellant was convicted under Section 304-B read with Section 498-A, IPC, vide judgment dated 17.3.1992. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under Section 304-B, IPC vide order dated 20.3.1992. He was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years besides fine amount of Rs. 2,000 under Section 498-A, IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 11. Hence, the present appeal. 12. I have gone through the entire record and have also considered the submissions advanced before me by learned Counsel for the appellant and learned State Counsel. 13. Learned Counsel for the accused-appellant very fairly conceded that the death of Paramjit Kaur had taken place in unnatural circumstances and within the period of 7 years of her marriage. Therefore, these two constituents of Section 304-B, IPC are made out. 14. However, it was submitted that the prosecution case suffers from a number of legal defects. 13. Learned Counsel for the accused-appellant very fairly conceded that the death of Paramjit Kaur had taken place in unnatural circumstances and within the period of 7 years of her marriage. Therefore, these two constituents of Section 304-B, IPC are made out. 14. However, it was submitted that the prosecution case suffers from a number of legal defects. Firstly, that Paramjit Kaur had committed suicide on 1.3.1990 and the present case was got registered against the accused-appellant by the father of deceased on 19.4.1990. There is an abnormal delay of 49 days. Reference was made to the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court reported as Rajeevan and Anr. v. State of Kerala, I (2003) CCR 384 (SC) Recent Criminal Reports 95 in which it was held by Their Lordships of the Hon ble Supreme Court that delay in reporting the matter to the police is very material and if not explained it can be fatal to the prosecution. 15. In the present case not only there is abnormal delay of 49 days in reporting the matter to the police but it has also not been properly explained. Therefore, the delay in reporting the matter to the police is very important circumstance in this case which creates a dent in the prosecution case. 16. It also looks surprising that Harbhajan Singh PW 8 had specifically admitted in his cross-examination that or 9.3.1990 they had taken back the dowry articles of Paramjit Kaur from the house of the accused. It clearly means that on 9.3.1990, the relations between the parental relatives of Paramjit Kaur and the accused-appellant had come to an end on a bitter note. It was then necessary for the complainant party to get the case registered, if there was any foul play in the murder of Paramjit Kaur or if the accused-appellant or his relatives were involved in her murder. The silence of Harbhajan Singh PW 8 clearly reveals that no such steps was taken by him before 19.4.1990. 17. Secondly, it was submitted that even conduct of the accused-appellant in this case clearly reveals that he was innocent. Immediately, after he came to know about the death of Paramjit Kaur by hanging, he informed the police. He also informed the parental relatives of Paramjit Kaur. 17. Secondly, it was submitted that even conduct of the accused-appellant in this case clearly reveals that he was innocent. Immediately, after he came to know about the death of Paramjit Kaur by hanging, he informed the police. He also informed the parental relatives of Paramjit Kaur. If there had been bad or mala fide intention on the part of the accused-appellant, he would not have reported the matter either to the police or to the parental relatives of the deceased and would have taken steps to dispose of the dead body of Paramjit Kaur. Therefore, this conduct of the accused-appellant probabilises that he had the clean state. 18. It may also be noticed that the dead body of Paramjit Kaur was subjected to post-mortem examination. Although, Rattan Singh PW 5, grand-father of the deceased deposed in the first part of his statement that the accused did not wait for their arrival and the dead body of Paramjit Kaur was consigned to flames before they could reach. But in the cross-examination he had admitted that in the photographs, Exhibits DC/1 to DC/8, he and his relatives are visible with dead body of Paramjit Kaur. This clearly reveals, therefore, that Rattan Singh PW 5 was not deposing the truth, when he stated that the dead body of Paramjit Kaur was consigned to flames before their arrival. 19. It also deserved to be noticed that Rattan Singh PW 5 had admitted his signatures on the statement dated 5.3.1990 Exhibit DA, although he alleges that he had not made such statement to the police. Similarly, Nirmal Singh PW 6 has admitted his signatures on his statement Exhibit DE, but he denied having made such statement to the police. Even Harbhajan Singh PW 8 (father of the deceased) has also admitted his signatures on his statement dated 5.3.1990 Exhibit PG, although he again qualified that his signatures were procured forcibly on a paper, which was already written. 20. In all these documents, Rattan Singh PW 5 (grand-father of the deceased), Nirmal Singh PW 6 (uncle of the deceased) and Harbhajan Singh PW 8 (father of the deceased), had made specific statements before the police that there was no foul play in the commission of suicide by Paramjit Kaur. 21. 20. In all these documents, Rattan Singh PW 5 (grand-father of the deceased), Nirmal Singh PW 6 (uncle of the deceased) and Harbhajan Singh PW 8 (father of the deceased), had made specific statements before the police that there was no foul play in the commission of suicide by Paramjit Kaur. 21. Although, they have alleged that they had not made such statements to the police or that their signatures were obtained forcibly on papers which were already written but at the same time, they admitted that they had not filed any complaint to the senior police officers for obtaining their signatures on already recorded statements. They also did not complain that the police was not taking any action on the murder of their daughter Paramjit Kaur. The silence of the father, uncle and grand-father of the deceased for such a long time speaks volumes against the prosecution case particularly, when they had given signed statements to the police that nobody is to be blamed for the suicide of their daughter Paramjit Kaur. 22. Admittedly, the marriage of Paramjit Kaur with Sushil Kumar accused was a love marriage. It was admitted even by Harbhajan Singh PW 8 in the opening lines of his cross-examination that it was correct that Paramjit Kaur and the accused-Sushil Kumar were in love affairs with each other and that they had arranged their marriage according to their desire. In love marriages normally the dowry does not intervene. Therefore, the allegations of demand of dowry are not believable for this reason also. 23. The prosecution has also placed much reliance on the letter Exhibit PH/ 2 dated 16.2.1990 written by Paramjit Kaur to her mother and her sister. This letter does not reveal if she had made any complaint to her mother regarding the alleged demand of dowry from her by her in-laws i.e. the accused and his parents. 24. It is also admitted even by the prosecution witness that the accused had purchased a residential flat in Faridabad out of his own income, where he was living with Paramjit Kaur at the time of occurrence. This house was purchased by him after his marriage with Paramjit Kaur and after the marriage they had shifted to the said residential flat in Sector 23, Faridabad. It means, therefore, that the accused was also well off to make his living. 25. This house was purchased by him after his marriage with Paramjit Kaur and after the marriage they had shifted to the said residential flat in Sector 23, Faridabad. It means, therefore, that the accused was also well off to make his living. 25. In this context, learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the recent judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court of India reported as Sunil Bajaj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, IV (2001) CCR 131 (SC) : 2001 (4) RCR (Criminal) 401, in which it was observed by Their Lordships of Hon ble Supreme Court that when there is no immediate demand of dowry and when in the letter written by the deceased to her parents there is no mention of cruelty with regard to demand of dowry and when the accused and his family members are financially well off, the essential requirement of Section 304-B, IPC is not made out. 26. From the discussion held above, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 27. Therefore, the appeal is accepted. The appellant is given the benefit of doubt and is, accordingly, acquitted.