JUDGMENT Harbans Lal, J.:- Through this criminal miscellaneous petition, the State of Haryana seeks grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 28.1.2006 and order of sentence dated 30.1.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, whereby respondents, Om Singh and Smt. Darshana Devi were acquitted by him. 2. In brief, the facts are that on 23.8.2003, the complainant- Ramphal son of Giani Ram, agriculturist by profession, resident of Village Lal, PS Jatusana, District Rewari came to P.S.Sadar, Charkhi Dadri and got recorded his statement to the effect that marriage of one of his daughters Meeta was solemnized on 18.2.2001 with Sanjay son of Om Singh, resident of Village Neemli. After about six months of the marriage of her daughter, her in-laws, i.e. mother-in-law Darshana, father-in-law Om Singh and husband-Sanjay started harassing her for bringing less dowry. They raised demand of a scooter and cash amount. In the month of March, 2003, she came to visit her parents and told them that she was often deprived of meals. On 17th of August, 2003, she returned to her matrimonial home. On 23.8.2003, a telephonic message was received from Village Neemli that Meeta was seriously ill. Thereupon, he along with his cousin Mange Ram and other family members went to Village Neemli and found Meeta lying dead on a cot. A rope was found tied with the hook of the ceiling of the room. He had firm belief that Meeta had been strangulated to death for not fulfilling the demand of dowry by her in-laws. Accordingly, FIR No.165 dated 23.8.2005 under Section 304-B read with Section 34, IPC was registered by ASI Des Raj. On the basis of the allegations, the respondents along with Sanjay were charge-sheeted under Sections 304-B and 498-A read with Section 34, IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After trial, the respondents, Om Singh and Smt.Darshana Devi were held entitled to be given benefit of doubt and so they were acquitted of the alleged offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A read with Section 34,IPC. Hence, the State of Haryana has come to this Court by way of this criminal miscellaneous petition for grant of leave to appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the record with their assistance. 4. Learned Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Hence, the State of Haryana has come to this Court by way of this criminal miscellaneous petition for grant of leave to appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the record with their assistance. 4. Learned Deputy Advocate General, Mr. P.S.Sullar, appearing for the appellant-State of Haryana, urged with good deal of force that a glance through the evidence trickled from the respective mouths of PW-9, Dr. U.S.Dasodia, PW-14, Satyavan and PW-11, complainant Ramphal would reveal that they have fully supported the prosecution case and the medical evidence corroborated the ocular evidence. In these premises, the learned trial Court have gravely erred in acquitting accused Om Singh and accused Darshana Devi and in convicting the accused Sanjay only under Section 498-A and 306, IPC though offence under Section 304-B, IPC is also fully established against him. He further puts that a careful delving into the judgment dated 28.1.2006 would reveal that the same is the result of misappreciation, non-appreciation and wrong appreciation of the evidence. He further contended that on appreciating the prosecution evidence, it transpires that the grant of leave to appeal is well warranted. 5. To overcome these submissions, Mr. Sanjay Vashisht, learned counsel appearing for the respondents maintained that the judgment in question is well based on the prosecution evidence and consequently no interference is called for. He further pointed out that no case for grant of leave to appeal is made out in the face of given evidence. 6. After giving a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions as also the evidence on record, we do not find substance in the contentions raised by Mr. P.S.Sullar, learnd Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. 7. As would be apparent from the testimony of Ramphal, PW-11, the accused Om Singh and his wife Darshana Devi accused were residing separately from their son Sanjay accused at the material time. Had they all three along with their daughter-in-law Meeta (deceased) been living jointly, in that eventuality, some articles belonging to Om Singh as well as Darshan Devi might have also been found in the house of Sanjay accused. Had they all three along with their daughter-in-law Meeta (deceased) been living jointly, in that eventuality, some articles belonging to Om Singh as well as Darshan Devi might have also been found in the house of Sanjay accused. As emerges out from the prosecution evidence, there was a closing of door on the other side of the room where the deceased was found lying and this fact in itself also substantiated the separate living of accused Om Singh and Darshana Devi from their son Sanjay. As emanates from the evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses, no specific instance has been attributed either to Om Singh or his wife Darshana Devi leading to the death of the deceased Meeta. As alleged, after six months of the marriage, the demand of scooter and cash amount was raised, which could not be fulfilled by Ramphal, PW-11 being impoverished. It implies that such demand was made in the month of August, 2001 whereas marriage was solemnized on 18.2.2001. Had the accused persisted on the fulfillment of their alleged demand, they would not have allowed the deceased to live with them till March, 2003. More to the point, by no stretch of speculation, Om Singh or his wife Darshana Devi would have been the beneficiaries of the demand of Scooter and cash amount. The statement of Ramphal, complainant, PW-11, which became the foundation or the basis of FIR,Ex. PD is absolutely silent about the specific demand of cash amount of Rs.80,000/- by the accused. However, Ramphal (sic.) when appeared in the Court as a witness, improved upon this fact by stating the amount with specificity. 8. As relied upon by the prosecution, a rope was found tied with the hook of the ceiling of the room and it was, thus, believed by the complainant that Meeta was done to death by strangulation. As per postmortem report, only two injuries were found i.e. one ligature mark around the neck between thyroid cartilage and chin and the other one was an abrasion on right elbow of the deceased. Had the deceased been done to death in the alleged manner by the accused, more injuries might have been found on her body in consequence of resistance which she in the natural course was bound to offer. Had the deceased been done to death in the alleged manner by the accused, more injuries might have been found on her body in consequence of resistance which she in the natural course was bound to offer. This apart, she might have also raised hue and cry attracting the neighbours as the house of the accused was situated in the Abadi (habitation). Without sojourning any longer on this short point, it is found that the judgment rendered by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity. Consequently, no case is made out for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment referred to hereinbefore and this application is dismissed. ————————————