JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - Assailing the order of acquittal passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bargarh in Sessions Trial No. 101/23 of 1994 acquitting the accused from the charges under Sections 302, 498-A, 304-B, IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act, the State of Orissa has approached this Court in this appeal. 2. On the basis of an F.I.R. filed by Ram Avatar Agarwal (P.W.8), Bargarh P.S. Case No. 234 (27) of 1993 was registered on 27.10.1993, which corresponds to G.R. Case No. 628 of 1993 of the court of learned SDJM, Bargarh. In the F.I.R. it was alleged that the Respondent had married Sangeeta, daughter of the informant (P.W.8) according to Hindu rites and customs way back on 1st March,1993. Few days after the marriage, certain dissentions cropped up as the family members of the Respondent demanded some more dowry from Sangeeta. On receiving such information from Sangeeta, the informant came to Bargarh and gave a T. V. set to the Respondent's family. Few months thereafter, the family members of the Appellant once again demanded a motor cycle. Unfortunately, the informant could not fulfill the said demand. Being enraged by the said fact, the family members of the Respondent, it is alleged, started ill-treating and torturing Sangeeta and on 27.10.1993 at about 1.00 A.M. the informant received a telephone message to the effect that his daughter had died. After receiving information, he immediately rushed to Bargarh and on enquiry, came to know that his daughter Sangeeta was killed by the family members of the accused due to non-fulfillment of dowry demands. On being questioned, the Respondent and his family members could not give any satisfactory reply about the cause of death of Sangeeta and such, the informant was constrained to lodge the F.I.R. (Ext.7). 3. After receiving of the F.I.R., the O.I.C., Bargarh Police Station took up investigation, sent the dead body for post mortem, seized the relevant materials, examined the witnesses and after completion of investigation, submitted the charge-sheet against the Respondent. Learned SDJM after going through the records and on being satisfied that prima facie case is made out, took cognizance of the offence under Sections 302, 498-A, 304-B, IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act and committed the case for trial. 4. The plea of the Respondent was of complete denial. Learned SDJM after going through the records and on being satisfied that prima facie case is made out, took cognizance of the offence under Sections 302, 498-A, 304-B, IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act and committed the case for trial. 4. The plea of the Respondent was of complete denial. According to him, a false case has been foisted against him on the basis of surmises and conjectures. 5. In order to substantiate their case, the prosecution got examined as many as ten witnesses and got exhibited seven documents. On behalf of the defence, one witness was examined. Out of the witnesses examined, P.W. 1 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body, P.Ws. 2, 6 and 9 are formal witnesses to the seizure, P.Ws. 3, 4, 7 and 8 are family members of the informant. They have been examined to prove the ill-treatment and torture mitigated to Sangeeta by the Respondent and other family members on demand of dowry. P.W. 5 is a post occurrence witness. Rambhagat Agarwal, the mediator of the marriage was examined by the defence as D. W. 2 to establish that there was no dowry demand at the time of marriage or thereafter. 6. After discussing the evidence in extenso, learned Addl. Sessions Judge arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution have totally failed to establish any of the charges levelled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted him u/s 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As stated earlier, the said order of acquittal is assailed in this Government Appeal. 7. Mr. K. K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate took pains to place the evidence of all the witnesses before this Court. It is submitted that the trial court had failed to appreciate the evidence of P.W. 8, the father of the deceased, mainly on the ground that there was certain discrepancies. between the statements made by him before the police and in court. It is further submitted that the trial court discarded the evidence of P.W. 4 only on the ground that thore was some delay by the police in examining him and summerised that P.W. 4 was not a witness, who can be trusted. Mr. between the statements made by him before the police and in court. It is further submitted that the trial court discarded the evidence of P.W. 4 only on the ground that thore was some delay by the police in examining him and summerised that P.W. 4 was not a witness, who can be trusted. Mr. Mishra, further emphasized that the trial court disbelieved the prosecution story mainly on the ground that no specific averments have been made in the F.I.R. with regard to demand of a sum of Rs. 15,000/- and aT. V. It is stated that the F.I.R. not being an encyclopedia, the reasonings given by the trial court are not acceptable in law. According to Mr. Mishra, the evidence of P.W. 1, the doctor, who conducted post-mortem as well as the post-mortem report reveals that the death was due to 100% burn injuries. That apart, the deceased was 12 weeks pregnant and as such, the plea taken by the defence that the death was an accidental one, cannot be believed. In short, according to Mr. Mishra, the judgment and order of acquittal suffers from other infirmities like improper consideration of evidence and it is a fit case where the order of acquittal needs to be interfered with. 8. Mr. S. S. Swain, learned Counsel appearing for the informant also reiterated the arguments advanced by learned Addl. Government Advocate. It is pertinent to mention here that the informant has not preferred any independent appeal assailing the order of acquittal. 9. Mr. N. C. Pati, learhed counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, supported the judgment and submitted that learned Addl. Sessions Judge has elaborately dealt with the evidence both oral and documentary and the conclusions arrived at are just and proper. According to Mr. Pati, the prosecution has totally failed to produce any reliable evidence to connect the Respondent with the alleged crime. On the other hand, the entire prosecution case hinges only on circumstantial evidence. Even the chain of circumstances according to Mr. Pati was not complete. Mr. Pati further emphatically submitted that suspicion however strong it may be, cannot be the basis for conviction and as such, in absence of any reliable evidence, the trial court has rightly acquitted the Respondent from all the charges. 10. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and considered the evidence meticulously. Pati was not complete. Mr. Pati further emphatically submitted that suspicion however strong it may be, cannot be the basis for conviction and as such, in absence of any reliable evidence, the trial court has rightly acquitted the Respondent from all the charges. 10. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and considered the evidence meticulously. Perusal of the F.I.R. gives an impression that the family members of the Respondent made a demand for dowry and tortured her but no specific overt-act whatsoever has been attributed to the Respondent either with regard to demand of dowry or with regard to assault. Fact remains, the death was caused due to 100% burn injuries. Thus, there is no doubt that the same was not a natural death. Surprisingly, charge-sheet was submitted only against the Respondent and the family members of the Respondent were not arrayed as accused persons before the court below. A perusal of all the evidence also reveals that the allegations were more serious against the family members of the Respondent than the Respondent. 11. It appears from the records that the informant being aggrieved by the fact that no charge-sheet was submitted against the family members of the Respondent, approached this Court in OJC No. 1760 of 1995 for issuance of a direction to set aside the charge-sheet submitted in Bargarh P.S. Case No. 234 of 1993 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 628 of 1993 of the court of learned SDJM, Bargarh as the Investigating Officer has not conducted investigation in a proper manner and tried to deliberately suppress the evidence and prayed to direct for fresh and further investigation into the case by either Central Bureau of Investigation or Crime Branch. The said writ application was disposed of on 2.5.1995 with the following order: Heard, Shri S. S. Swain appearing for the Petitioner wants to withdraw this writ petition saying that the Petitioner will file a Criminal Revision assailing the order of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bargarh dated 20.12.1993 in S.T. No. 101/23 of 1994 within 3 weeks. The writ application is disposed of as withdrawn. Sessions Judge, Bargarh dated 20.12.1993 in S.T. No. 101/23 of 1994 within 3 weeks. The writ application is disposed of as withdrawn. Thereafter it appears, the informant filed Criminal Revision No. 266 of 1995 with the following prayer: It is therefore, prayed that Your Lordship may kindly be pleased to admit and call for the lower court records as stated herein below and after hearing be pleased to pass an order/directions to the Opposite Party deemed fit and proper that the investigation in Bargarh P.S. Case No. 234 dated 30. 10.1993 which ended in Charge Sheet No. 6 dt. 31. 1. 94 against only one accused, i.e., Mohanlal Agarwal u/s 498(A), 304(B) I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act corresponding to G. R. Case No. 628 of 1993 of the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bargarh presently corresponding to S.T. No. 101/23-94 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bargarh was illegal, arbitrary, whimsical and contrary to law and in fact amounts to deliberate suppression of the facts and evidence by such dishonest and corrupt police investigation to safely allow the other culprits directly or indirectly involved in the unnatural death and murder of Sangeeta Bai to go scot free and thus hit by Articles 214,19 and 21 of the Constitution and in violation of the provisions under Chapter-XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure and further be pleased to issue an order/direction for fresh or further investigation u/s 173(8), Code of Criminal Procedure into this aforesaid case by either Central Bureau of investigation or Crime Branch and on submission of further police report u/s 173(8) Code of Criminal Procedure before the competent court/or trial Court and after due consideration of the said report, the Hon'ble Court should decide the question of issue of process to the other accused persons involved in this case, and further be pleased to set aside the order dated 20. 10. 94 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bargarh in S.T. Case No. 101/23 of 1994. " xx xx xx xx From order dated 26.6.2000 it appears that when the matter was listed for hearing, no counsel appeared for the Petitioner in the said revision. 10. 94 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bargarh in S.T. Case No. 101/23 of 1994. " xx xx xx xx From order dated 26.6.2000 it appears that when the matter was listed for hearing, no counsel appeared for the Petitioner in the said revision. Considering the fact that Criminal Revision was pending since 1995, after perusal of the averments made in the revision petition and the impugned order, this Court was not inclined to grant the relief prayed for and the revision petition was dismissed. It appears, attempt was made to recall the order by filling a Misc. Case. The said Misc. Case was also dismissed on 4.7.2000. Thus, the endeavour to cause further investigation and to add the family members of the Respondent as accused persons in the case came to an end. 12. Mr. Swain, in course of hearing, submitted that if this Court is satisfied that the investigating officer of the case has not conducted investigation in accordance with law and has tried to suppress the true facts and has conducted investigation in a perfunctory manner, a direction can be given for re-investigation. We considered the said submission diligently, but then, it appears to us that the incident was of the year 1993. Sixteen years have passed in the meanwhile and as such directing for re-investigation at this stage would not be in the interest of any of the parties. Even otherwise, the informant, as it appears from the orders quoted above, had approached this Court earlier with the self-same grievance, but then had failed to succeed in his endeavour. Thus, according to us, it is too late for this Court to issue any direction for re-investigation. 13. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the State as well as Mr. Swain, this Court carefully went through the evidence. There is no doubt that death of Sangeeta was caused by burns and was otherwise than under normal circumstances. The same also occurred with seven years of her marriage. Under the said circumstances, in order to bring home the charge u/s 304-B IPC, the prosecution was required to prove that soon before her death, Sangeeta was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband, the Respondent in connection with demand of dowry, but unfortunately the prosecution has failed to do so. Under the said circumstances, in order to bring home the charge u/s 304-B IPC, the prosecution was required to prove that soon before her death, Sangeeta was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband, the Respondent in connection with demand of dowry, but unfortunately the prosecution has failed to do so. Further, neither any charge has been framed against the Respondent with regard to demand of dowry by the Respondent soon before the death of Sangeeta nor any specific overt-act has been attributed to the Respondent in connection with or with regard to demand of dowry. On the other hand, in the F.I.R. as well as the evidence adduced in court, it is alleged that the family members of the Respondent demanded dowry and also tortured Sangeeta. Thus, the trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that the basic ingredients of Section 304-B, IPC has not been satisfied so far as the Respondent is concerned and so also the ingredients of Section 498-A, IPC. The informant, who is the father of the deceased in his evidence has clearly admitted that he was in frequent visiting terms to the house of the in-laws of his daughter. Surprisingly, he has not stated anything with regard to demand of dowry by the Respondent or with regard to any torture mitigated to Sangeeta on the ground of demand of dowry. The trial court has vividly discussed the evidence. It appears, P.W. 8 tried to patch up the lacunas in the F.I.R. in court, but has totally failed to do so. A close reading of the evidence of P.W. 8 reveals that he cannot be said to be a trustworthy witness. That apart, it appears, Sangeeta died on 27.10.1993. The F.I.R. was lodged three days after, i.e., on 30.10.1993. There is no explanation with regard to delay. The oral evidence reveals that the informant arrived at Bargarh on the same day. P.W. 4 is not a trustworthy witness at all, inasmuch as though in examination-in-chief he has stated that he received information through telephone, in cross-examination he has admitted that he has no telephone of his own. Neither P.W. 4 nor P.W. 8 could be believed as their evidence suffers from several discrepancies. 14. On a cumulative assessment of the entire evidence, this Court finds that learned Addl. Neither P.W. 4 nor P.W. 8 could be believed as their evidence suffers from several discrepancies. 14. On a cumulative assessment of the entire evidence, this Court finds that learned Addl. Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence and the order of acquittal does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality so as to warrant any interference that too after sixteen years from the date of incident. The prosecution has failed to substantiate their case by adducing cogent evidence against the Respondent. Consequently, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of acquittal. 15. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. S.C. Parija, J. 16. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed