JUDGMENT : S.K. Mishra, J. - The State has preferred this appeal challenging acquittal of the Respondents of the offences under Sections 498A, 304B, 302, 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the "I.P.C." for brevity) read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the "Act" for brevity). 2. Deceased Kalpana was given in marriage to one Gajendra Kumar Mund, (Respt No. 1) on 14.03.1993. After her marriage, it is alleged, the bride was subjected to mental torture & there was demand for dowry. On 14.12.1995, said Gajendra Mund submitted missing persons report before the police & sent intimation to his parents-in-law & parents intimating that Kalpana was missing since 13.12.1995. On such report, police enquired into the matter & discovered the dead body of the deceased inside an abandoned well, which situated at the backside of the house of the accused. On such discovery, Bhawanipatna Town U.D. Case No. 18 of 1995 dated 14.12.1995 was registered. The dead body was subjected to postmortem examination. On 16.12.1995, on the F.I.R. lodged by father of the deceased, the case was turned into a case under Sections 498A, 304B, 302/34, I.P.C. & Section 4 of the Act & Town P.S Case No. 15 of 1994 was registered. In that F.I.R., he alleged that the husband & parents-in-law were subjecting the girl to mental torture & also demanded dowry like Scooter, Fridge, gold chain etc. The case was originally investigated by the Officer In-charge of Bhawanipatna P.S., but later on, on the allegation that the local police was not taking proper interest in upholding truth the had approached the Human Rights Protection Cell, Cuttack. Accordingly, the Inspector of H.R.D.C., Orissa took up investigation. After completion of investigation, he chargesheeted the accused persons for the offences under Sections 498A, 304B, 302/34, I.P.C. & Section 4 of the Act. It is also evident that at the lime of hearing of the arguments, the Public Prosecutor prayed for an alternative charge u/s 306, I.P.C. 3. In course of trial, prosecution got examined as many as 25 witnesses, whereas defence did not examine any. On behalf of the prosecution, about 45 documents have been led into evidence as exhibits. 4. It is also evident that at the lime of hearing of the arguments, the Public Prosecutor prayed for an alternative charge u/s 306, I.P.C. 3. In course of trial, prosecution got examined as many as 25 witnesses, whereas defence did not examine any. On behalf of the prosecution, about 45 documents have been led into evidence as exhibits. 4. Learned Sessions Judge, after elaborate discussion of the materials available on record, came to the following conclusions: (I) Gajendra & Kapana were married according to their caste custom on 14.04.1993 at village Chilakpur at the bride's residence. (II) That Kalpana died on 13/14. 12.1995 in the house of the accused. Death of Kalpana was unnatural & it took place within seven years of marriage. (III) There was no direct demand of any specific article before or at the time of marriage. (IV) The prosecution witnesses had never stated about the alleged demand of dowry or torture before the Investigating Officer but improved the case by implicating the accused persons to be demanding dowry & torture to the deceased in the Court. (V) There is not an iota of cogent, sufficient & convincing evidence available on record to come to a finding that 'on nonfulfilment of demand of Fridge & other articles, the accused persons tortured & committed murder of the deceased. (VI) There was delay in lodging of the F.I.R., which has not been explained properly. (VII) The F.I.R. has been lodged after due deliberation & meeting of mind to foist a false case against the accused persons. (VIII) The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4, 9 & 11 reveals that they have exaggerated the case at the time of trial & they have introduced new facts of the case by the prosecution to improve upon their previous statement. (IX) There is no evidence that soon before her death, Kalpana was subjected to any kind of torture. (X) P.Ws. 6, 7, 13, 14 & 15, who are neighbours of the accused, have not stated in their evidence that at any point of time the deceased complained before them that the accused persons were harassinq & torturing her for non-fulfillment of dowry. 5. (X) P.Ws. 6, 7, 13, 14 & 15, who are neighbours of the accused, have not stated in their evidence that at any point of time the deceased complained before them that the accused persons were harassinq & torturing her for non-fulfillment of dowry. 5. On such factual findings, the Learned lower Court has finally came to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge under Sections 498A, 304B, 302/34, I.P.C. and read with Section 4 of the Act against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt & therefore, he went on to acquit the accused persons of the charges. 6. In assailing the findings recorded by the Trial Court, the Addl. Government Advocate submitted that the Learned Lower Court has not appreciated the evidence of the prosecution in its proper perspective & has come to a perverse finding. Learned Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, argued at length & submitted that the findings recorded by the Trial Court are just & correct & there is no scope of interference of the same. 7. The scope of Appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal has been discussed in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghurey Lal v. State of Utter Pradesh 2009 (1) SCC (Cri) 60. In that reported case, the Supreme Court after taking into consideration all its previous decisions on the point has summarised the principles that govern appeals against acquittal. They are as follows: (1) The Appellate Court may review the evidence in appeals against acquittal under Sections 378 & 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Code" for brevity). Its power of reviewing evidence is wide & the Appellate Court can reappreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the Trial Court's conclusion with respect to both facts & law. (2) The accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty & the accused possessed this presumption when he was before the Trial Court. The Trial Court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. (3) Due or proper weight & consideration must be given to the Trial Court's decision. This is especially true when witness credibility is at issue. It Is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence. There must also be substantial & compelling reasons for holding that the Trial Court was wrong. (3) Due or proper weight & consideration must be given to the Trial Court's decision. This is especially true when witness credibility is at issue. It Is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence. There must also be substantial & compelling reasons for holding that the Trial Court was wrong. Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that in view of the above, the High Court & other Appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. (1) The Appellate Court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the Trial Court's acquittal if it has "very substantial & compelling reasons" for doing so. A number of instances arise in which the Appellate Court would have "very substantial & compelling reasons" to discard the Trial Court's decision. "Very substantial & compelling reasons" exist when: (i) the Trial Court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong; (ii) the Trial Court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law; (iii) the, Trial Court's Judgment is likely to result in gave miscarriage of justice; (iv) the entire approach of the Trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal; (v) the Trial Court's. Judgment was manifestly unjust & unreasonable; (vi) the Trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc. (This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.) (2) The Appellate Court must always give proper weight & consideration to the findings of the Trial Court. (3) If two reasonable views can be reached one leads to acquittal & the other to conviction the High Court/Appellate Court must rule in favour of the accused. 8. Reviewing the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution it is seen that P.W.1 has in detail described the instances of demand of dowry & torture meted out to the deceased. At page 20 paragraph 25, the defence has put questions to him to contradict his statement that he has not stated about these instances before the Investigating officer in course of investigation. 9. At page 20 paragraph 25, the defence has put questions to him to contradict his statement that he has not stated about these instances before the Investigating officer in course of investigation. 9. A quick reference to evidence of P.W. 24, the Investigating officer, who took up investigation at the initial stage reveals that the P.W.1 has not stated before him that the accused told him to give articles in marriage which would be appreciated by others. The said witness has not specifically stated before the Investigating Officer that Sunamani expressed that TV, Coolers & other articles were old & used one & asked to take them back. He had also not stated before the Investigating Officer that accused Sunamani told that they have got many fans in use & to have told him to take back the old & used fans & give new fans. P.W. 1 took the fan & went to the village. Similarly, the informant has not stated before the Investigating Officer that an amount of Rs. 6,500 was paid to Kalpana in order to purchase TV & Cooler as per their choice. In substance, the evidence of P.W. 1 & 24 read together reveals that P.W. 1 has not stated before him specifically the instances in which the dowry articles were demanded, 10. Similarly, the evidence of P.W. 2 reveals that though she has spoken about the instances, where the dowry demand were made, the defence has brought out a contradiction in the evidence to the effect that in the statement recorded u/s 161 of the Code. P.W. 2 has not stated such instances*of dowry demand before the Investigating Officer. Similarly, P.W. 3 has been contradicted as per her statement is concerned with regard to the statement made by her in the Court as against the statement made before the Investigating Officer i.e. P.W. 24. Similar is the case of P.W. 4 Rajat Kumar Praharaj, P.W.9 Snehalata & P.W. 11, Sonu Prasad Behera. The peculiarity of the case is that though the defence has brought contradiction in the evidence of these witnesses to the effect that they had not stated about the instances of the demand for dowry & torture before the Police Officer, P.W. 24, there is no suggestion to them that when the Inspector of the Human Rights Protection Cell took up investigation, they have not stated so in their statement. 11. 11. As far as charge u/s 302 of the I.P.C. is concerned, there is no material to hold that the death of the deceased as homicidal in nature. Learned Addl. Government Advocate has pointed out that since there was no external injury on the dead body of the deceased, the deceased could not have committed suicide by jumping into the well or by accidental fall into the well. Criminal cases cannot be decided on such surmises & conjectures. It is also noted here that in course of the trial, Learned Public Prosecutor has conceded that there was no material to sustain a charge u/s 302 of the I.P.C. & therefore, the alternative charge of Section 306 of the I.P.C. was framed. Hence, the Learned Trial Court's finding that the offence u/s 302 of the I.P.C. is not made out is proper & cannot be interfered with. 12. In order to bring horn? the charge u/s 304B of the I.P.C. the prosecution must prove the following: (i) That the marriage of the deceased took place within seven years of the incideru, (ii) & That death of the deceased was otherwise than under normal circumstances; (iii) That there was torture or ill-treatment of the deceased in connection with the demand for dowry soon before her death. If all these ingredients are satisfied, the presumption will be that the husband & his relations are guilty of offence of dowry death. In this case, prosecution has relied heavily on the evidence of P.W.7- Kumudini Mund. It is alleged that she has stated before the Investigating Officer regarding the ill-treatment meted out to the deceased just a day before the incident. Further, this witness has not supported the prosecution & with the leave of the Court, prosecution cross-examined the witness. This witness has not admitted that she had stated before the police that two days prior to the death of Kalpana, she was crying before her saying that she had been tortured for non-fulfillment of dowry demand & the witness consoled her. She further denied to have stated before the Investigating Officer that on 13.12.1999 accused Gajendra picked up a quarrel in a drunken state & that in the night of occurrence, he asked the maid servant not to sleep in their house. She further denied to have stated before the Investigating Officer that on 13.12.1999 accused Gajendra picked up a quarrel in a drunken state & that in the night of occurrence, he asked the maid servant not to sleep in their house. The prosecution has brought out in cross-examination from the mouth of P.W. 24 that in fact P.W. 7 had made that kind of statement before the Investigating Officer in course of the investigation of the case. However, such statement cannot be taken into consideration for recording finding that Kalpana complained before her for nonfulfillment of demand of dowry. The evidence given in the Court is substantive evidence, whereas any statement recorded u/s 161 of the Code is only a previous statement which can only be used for the purpose of contradicting the prosecution witnesses. Thus, the evidence of this witness does not support the case of the prosecution. Hence, the vital ingredient that soon before the death of the deceased, she was subjected to torture or ill-treatment by her husband or his relations is not satisfied in this case as there is no proof regarding the same. So the Learned lower Court has rightly acquitted the accused persons of the offence u/s 304B of the I.P.C. 13. As far as the offence u/s 306 of the I.P.C. is concerned, the evidence of the Doctor is inconclusive in the sense that he has not stated that the death was definitely suicidal. In paragraph 7 of the examination-in-chief, P.W. 23 has stated that the death might be suicidal. Coupled with the fact that there is no evidence either direct or circumstantial indicating that the deceased was subjected to any cruelty nor there is any evidence of abatement for the suicide, thus the offence u/s 306 of the I.P.C. is also not established & the lower Court has correctly held that the offence u/s 306 of the I.P.C, has not established & acquitted all the accused persons of that charge. 14. On the question of Section 498A of the I.P.C. & Section 4 of the Act, Learned Add. Government Advocate relying upon the reported decision in (1993) 6 OCR 625, submitted that even when the evidence regarding the commission of offence u/s 304B is inadequate, the conviction can be recorded for the offences u/s 498A of the I.P.C. & Section 4 of the Act. Government Advocate relying upon the reported decision in (1993) 6 OCR 625, submitted that even when the evidence regarding the commission of offence u/s 304B is inadequate, the conviction can be recorded for the offences u/s 498A of the I.P.C. & Section 4 of the Act. The State, in this connection, relies on the statements made by the deceased before her parents regarding the demand for dowry etc. 15. The Apex Court in Bhairon Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, has examined the question whether the oral evidence of witnesses about what the deceased had told them against the accused about the treatment meted out by her is admissible u/s 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Evidence Act", for brevity) to sustain conviction u/s 498A of the I.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case has held that except Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, there is no other provision under which the statement of a dead person can be looked into in evidence. The statement of a dead person is admissible in law if the statement is as to the cause of death or as to any circumstance of the transaction which resulted in her death, in a case in which the cause of death comes into question. In that reported case, the death of the deceased was neither homicidal nor suicidal & was accidental. Since for the offence u/s 498A simplicitor, the question of death is not & cannot be an issue for consideration, the Supreme Court held that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is hardly an evidence in law to establish such offence by attracting Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. The question of applicability of res gestae was also looked into. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the rule res gestae means a fact which, though not in issue, is so connected with the fact in issue "as to form a part of the same transaction" & becomes relevant by itself. To form particular statement as part of the same transaction utterances must be simultaneous with the incident or substantially contemporaneous that is made either during or immediately before or after its occurrence. To form particular statement as part of the same transaction utterances must be simultaneous with the incident or substantially contemporaneous that is made either during or immediately before or after its occurrence. Section 6 of the Evidence Act, in the facts & circumstance of the case, insofar as admissibility of the statements of the prosecution witnesses about what the deceased had told them against the accused of the treatment meted out to her is concerned, is not at all attracted. Applying this principle to the case in hand, it is also seen that there is no immediate proximity between the so-called statement made by the deceased before her parents & the occurrence. Hence, the same cannot be accepted as evidence u/s 6 nor it is admissible u/s 32(1) of the Evidence Act. 16. There are certain allegations of demand of dowry directly by the accused Sunamani, which is evident from the statement of P.W. 9 Snehalata. There is also material on record that there was demand for a Scooter & the Scooter was purchased & was given to Gajendra & at the first instance, he had returned the same saying that there was no space to keep the same. Later on, it was again sent to him through P.W. 3. The Learned Sessions Judge, while considering this material, has come to the conclusion that the evidence is not sufficient to record a conviction regarding any demand for dowry or ill-treatment meted out to the deceased in relation to such dowry demand. As has been held in Ghurey Lal's case (supra), the Appellate Court must give proper weight & consideration to the findings of the Trial Court. This is so because the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused-Respondents is reinforced by a finding of the acquittal. The Appellate Court should not interfere with such orders of acquittal unless the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court's Judgment is palpably wrong, totally ill-founded or wholly misconceived, based on erroneous analysis of evidence & non-existent material demonstratively not sustainable or perverse. The Appellate Court cannot reverse a Judgment of acquittal into one of conviction merely because the Appellate judge may be having a different appreciation of evidence. 17. The Appellate Court cannot reverse a Judgment of acquittal into one of conviction merely because the Appellate judge may be having a different appreciation of evidence. 17. Keeping in mind such principles, this Court has carefully examined the Judgment of the Learned Lower Court & reviewed the evidence on record & has come to the conclusion that the Learned Sessions Judge has very carefully & extensively examined & discussed the evidence of the witnesses & his analysis & appreciation of evidence cannot be said to be perverse, & there is any substantial & compelling reason for overturning the findings recorded by the Learned Trial Court. In the result,the appeal fails & the same is dismissed. A.S. Naidu, J. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed