JUDGMENT T.P.S. Mann, J.:- The petitioner is seeking quashing of order passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jagraon on 13.3.2006, whereby application moved by the prosecution for directing the petitioner for medical examination to supply his samples for DNA test, was Assailed in this appeal is the judgment dated 15.9.1993 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, vide which all the five accused, namely; Tirlok Chand, Tarun Kumar, Trishla, Anjali and Manoj Kumar were acquitted of the charges under Sections 302/34, 498-A as well as under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Jagmohan Gupta (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) solemnized marriage of his daughter Shalini (since deceased) aged about 22 years with accused Tarun Kumar on 8.12.1990, at Meerut. The complainant in his statement made before the police on 11.12.1991 disclosed that at the time of marriage of her daughter Shalini with Tarun Kumar, he had given a sum of Rs.1 lac in cash, ornaments, clothes and other domestic articles to the accused persons, but they were not satisfied with the articles of the marriage. Therefore, all the accused started harassing and maltreating his daughter on account of bringing inadequate dowry. Even on Diwali, Smt.Trishla - accused made a telephonic call at the house of the complainant at Meerut raising a demand for cash. Even accused Tarun Kumar also demanded cash for running his business. An amount of Rs.500/- sent by the complainant through draft to the in-laws of the deceased was returned. On 11. 12.1991, on receipt of the information regarding the death of Shalini, the complainant visited the General Hospital, Gurgaon, where Assistant Sub Inspector Shakuntla of Police Station City Gurgaon also arrived. She prepared the Inquest Report on the dead body and recorded the statement of the complainant, on the basis of which First Information Report Ex.PG was registered at Police Station City Gurgaon. Thereafter, further investigation was conducted by Station House Officer Inspector Sarjit Singh. 3. On completion of the investigation, challan against the accused was produced in the court. Consequently, they were charged under Sections 498-A, 302/34 and in the alternative under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. 4. In order to secure the conviction of the accused, the prosecution examined Dr. 3. On completion of the investigation, challan against the accused was produced in the court. Consequently, they were charged under Sections 498-A, 302/34 and in the alternative under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. 4. In order to secure the conviction of the accused, the prosecution examined Dr. S.K. Sharma (PW 1), Mool Chand Punia (PW2), Constable Jai Pal (PW3), Assistant Sub Inspector Smt. Shankuntla (PW4), J.C. Bhasin (PW5), Jagmohan Gupta - complainant (PW6), Photographer Balwant Rai Bhatia (PW7), Rakesh Gupta (PW8), Inspector Sarjit Singh (PW9) and Assistant Sub Inspector Vishnu Dutt (PW 10). 5. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while admitting the factum of marriage, they denied all other allegations. However, they further explained that Shalini suffered from sex perversion and was extremely sexy, whereas, Tarun Kumar was immature and inexperienced; Shalini committed suicide under frustration; the complainant wanted to exploit the accused as they did not succumb to his pressure; the complainant lodged a false and fabricated complaint implicating the entire family in the case; Tirlok Chand - accused is Under Secretary in the Department of Women and Child Development, New Delhi and on the day of occurrence, he was on his duty in his office at New Delhi. Similar plea was adopted by all the accused. 6. In defence, accused examined Dr. Kamla Ajmani (DW 1), who testified that on 7.6.1991 she had examined Shalini (deceased) and had found that she was bleeding. It was told to her that she had suffered abortion at her house seven days before the check-up. She was lastly examined by her on 14.6.1991. N.C.Jain (DW2), a resident of Meerut deposed that he was the mediator in the marriage; none of the accused had raised demand of dowry at any occasion. He also categorically deposed that wife of the complainant was operated upon and he had gone to enquire about her health and at that time Shalini was present there; he also enquired about the well-being of Shalini. Sunita Gupta (DW3) denied her signatures and hand-writing on the letter Mark DS. Likewise, Jitender Mohan (DW4) stated that marks DT and DU are not in his hand-writing. Som Nath Aggarwal (DW4) Hand-writing and Finger-print Expert identified the hand­ writing of Shalini on Ex.DW5/44 to DW5/53. Sunita Gupta (DW3) denied her signatures and hand-writing on the letter Mark DS. Likewise, Jitender Mohan (DW4) stated that marks DT and DU are not in his hand-writing. Som Nath Aggarwal (DW4) Hand-writing and Finger-print Expert identified the hand­ writing of Shalini on Ex.DW5/44 to DW5/53. Mahesh Kumar (DW6), neighbour of the accused stated that on 11.12.1991 at 12.30 noon, he had heard weeping and crying, emerging from the house of the accused and when he went there he was told by the wife of Tirlok Chand (Trishla ­accused) that her daughter-in-Iaw had become unconscious. and had been taken to Civil Hospital, Gurgaon and he also went to the Hospital and saw that the accused Tarun Kumar and Anjali were also there along with Shalini. Ultimately, the Trial Court on scrutiny of the evidence, reached the conclusion that no sufficient evidence has been led by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused. Extending benefit of doubt to the accused, all of them were acquitted, hence, this appeal. 7. The argument as advanced by the Assistant Advocate General appearing for the State of Haryana is two-fold; firstly since Shalini (deceased) died in the house of her in-laws in other than normal circumstances, therefore, the culpability of the accused can well be inferred in the absence of any such explanation as to how she died and the accused are responsible for her death. It has also been urged that since it is a case of strangulation, which cannot be handiwork of one man and, thus, all the accused are responsible for the murder of Shalini. 8. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contentions, we do not feel persuaded by the said argument. No witness is available to unfold the facts leading to the death of Shalini. Therefore, to trace out if it is a homicidal or a suicidal act, we to bank upon the medical evidence. 8. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contentions, we do not feel persuaded by the said argument. No witness is available to unfold the facts leading to the death of Shalini. Therefore, to trace out if it is a homicidal or a suicidal act, we to bank upon the medical evidence. In this regard, the prosecution examined Dr.S.K.Sharma (PW1), according to whom, in a case of strangulation before the act is done by the accused, the resistance on the part of the victim before he/she is strangulated is inevitable, but in this case, no bite marks, scratches, abrasions or bruises could be noticed; even the clothes of the deceased were not disarrayed or torn; there was no change over the face expressions due to the acute pain, agony or pressure, which could be the normal signs to rule out the theory of suicide. Further, Dr.S.K.Sharma testified that face of the victim by the mechanical asphyxia, as a result of strangulation may be livid, swollen, open eyes with dilated pupils, whereas, on the body of Shalini, Dr.S.K.Sharma did not attract any such marks, rather, he deposed that eyes were found closed and the face was not swollen. Therefore, the death could not be said to be a homicidal one.. Dr.S.K.Sharma (PW1) further disclosed that on examination of the dead body, he detected that the right superior horn of the thyroid cartilage was fractured and the fractured end on the left side was displaced inwards and the legature mark around the neck of Shalini was horizontal, which made him to conclude that it was a case of ligature strangulation. During the cross-examination, he further admitted that in case of suicide, the legature mark may be horizontal, but he explained that after the collective reading of other circumstances, the case was not that of homicide. Consequently, we are moved with the findings returned by the Trial Court that it was not a homicide. 9. Now coming to the second aspect of the case, whether the accused could be held guilty of the dowry death, it may be observed that since Shalini had committed suicide and died other than in normal circumstances in the house of her in-laws, therefore, out of three ingredients, which are essential to prove the dowry death, two are complete. 9. Now coming to the second aspect of the case, whether the accused could be held guilty of the dowry death, it may be observed that since Shalini had committed suicide and died other than in normal circumstances in the house of her in-laws, therefore, out of three ingredients, which are essential to prove the dowry death, two are complete. With regard to the third main ingredient that the accused were torturing, maltreating or harassing the deceased on account of demand of dowry, it may be observed that the prosecution has badly failed to establish the same. Though, the complainant while appearing in the witness box stated that on 4.11.1990 i.e. a day of younger Diwali (chhoti Diwali) he received a telephonic message from Trishla (accused) demanding Rs.20,000/- in cash and he was also informed by Shalini (deceased) that the accused had demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- from her for running of the business, but the complainant further stated that he could not record about the aforesaid facts in the First Information Report. Therefore, inference would be drawn that the aforesaid demand, as alleged by the complainant, having been raised by the accused is nothing, but an after thought. The complainant has further admitted that neither accused Anjali nor Manoj Kumar, either before or after marriage, raised demand of dowry from them. The close scrutiny of the First Information Report (Ex.PG) lodged by the complainant further transpires that he did not mention if the accused Tirlok Chand ever raised any demand during the subsistence of the marriage of Shalini and Tarun Kumar. The allegations regarding raising demand for dowry, as alleged by the complainant in his statement before the Court also appears to be an improvement over his earlier statement made before the police. The story regarding the beating of Shalini at the hands of the accused is also totally false, which stands falsified by Dr.Kamla Ajmani (DW1)’ of Rohtak, who while appearing in the witness box testified that on 7.6.1991, she had examined Shalini. It was a case of abortion and she had advised them operation known as ‘DNC’. Thus, the story as alleged by the complainant that Shalini was beaten by the accused persons at Gurgaon on 8.6.1991 turns to be a farce, as according to Dr.Kamla Ajmani, Shalini remained under her treatment w.e.f. 7.6.1991 to 14.6.1991. It was a case of abortion and she had advised them operation known as ‘DNC’. Thus, the story as alleged by the complainant that Shalini was beaten by the accused persons at Gurgaon on 8.6.1991 turns to be a farce, as according to Dr.Kamla Ajmani, Shalini remained under her treatment w.e.f. 7.6.1991 to 14.6.1991. At the cost of repetition, the complainant stated that on 4.11.1991 he had received a telephonic message from Trishla (accused) raising demand of Rs.20,000/-, but this statement stands contradicted by his own brother-in-law Rakesh Gupta (PW8). All this goes to show that the story as set up by the prosecution regarding the demand of dowry raised by the accused has been introduced later on. The facts and circumstances prevailing over the case speak for themselves that the deceased was under somewhat depression and she might have committed suicide for the reasons not attributable to the accused. Having perused the judgment of the Trial court, the same is shorn of any such defect, illegality of irregularity suggesting interference by this Court. Consequently, finding not fault with the same, the appeal preferred by the State of Haryana stands dismissed. ———————————