JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.: This appeal, preferred by the State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 1.6.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (E.C. Act), Dheradun in Sessions Trial No. 110 of 1994, whereby the said court has acquitted the respondents Dinesh Kumar, Smt. Atri Devi, Shishpal @ Sonu and Hukum Chandra from the charge of offences punishable under Section 304B & 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC). The trial court has further acquitted the accused respondents from the charge of offence punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the trial court record. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that accused respondents Dinesh Kumar got married to Snehlata (deceased), sister of complainant Dev Dutt (PW1) on 6.12.1987. She died of burn injuries in November, 1992. On 10.11.1992, PW1 Dev Dutt lodged the First Information Report (Ex. A-1) at Police Station Kotwali, Dehradun against the respondents Dinesh Kumar (husband), Smt. Atri Devi (mother-in-law), Hukum Chandra (father-in-law) and Shishpal @ Sonu (brother-in-law) relating to offences punishable under Section 304B, 498A IPC and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. On the basis of said report, Crime No. 1135 of 1992 was registered and the same was investigated by PW7 Ajay Mohan Sharma, Circle Officer. It is alleged by the complainant in the FIR that after marriage of his sister Snehlata with the accused Dinesh Kumar, she was subjected to cruelty by her husband and in-laws due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. 4. After death of Snehlata, her body was taken into possession by the police and inquest report (Ex. A-7) was prepared. Dead body was sent in a sealed condition for post-mortem examination. PW3 Dr. V.S. Panwar conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Snehlata on 10.11.1992 at 4.30 pm and prepared autopsy report (Ex. A-2). He opined that Snehlata had died of septicemia and shock as a result of extreme burn injuries. After interrogating the witnesses and inspecting the spot, the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet (Ex. A-8) against all the four accused, namely, Dinesh Kumar, Smt. Atri Devi, Shishpal @ Sonu and Hukum Chandra. 5. A-2). He opined that Snehlata had died of septicemia and shock as a result of extreme burn injuries. After interrogating the witnesses and inspecting the spot, the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet (Ex. A-8) against all the four accused, namely, Dinesh Kumar, Smt. Atri Devi, Shishpal @ Sonu and Hukum Chandra. 5. On receipt of the chargesheet, the Magistrate, after giving necessary copies of the documents to the accused respondents as required under Section 207 CrPC, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. 6. On 24.6.1995, learned Additional Sessions Judge (E.C. Act), Dehradun, after hearing the parties, framed charge of offences punishable under Section 304B and 498A IPC and also relating to one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against all the four accused, namely, Dinesh Kumar, Smt. Atri Devi, Shishpal @ Sonu and Hukum Chandra, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. On this, prosecution got examined PW1 Dev Dutt (complainant and brother of the deceased), PW2 Surendra Kumar (brother-in-charge of the deceased), PW3 Dr. V.S. Panwar, who conducted the postmortem examination, PW4 Head Constable Ganga Prasad, PW5 Sub Inspector K.K. Gautam, PW6 Radhey Shyam and PW7 Ajay Mohan Sharma, the Investigating Officer. 8. The oral and documentary evidence were put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC, in reply to which it was admitted by the accused respondents that Snehlata got married to Dinesh Kumar on 6.12.1987, but they denied the other evidence on record. It is pleaded by them that Snehlata died an accidental death when stove blasted at the time of cooking the food. In defence, DW1 Deshveer, DW2 Satish Chandra Joshi and DW3 Dinesh Kumar (accused respondent no. 1 after seeking permission of the court) were examined. It is stated by the defence witnesses that it was an accidental death at the time of cooking the food and there was no demand of dowry nor harassment due to that reason. 9. The trial court, after hearing the parties, found that the incident of death of death of Snehlata appears to be an accident, as pleaded by defence. The trial Court did not find substance in the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution that dowry was demanded by the accused respondents or the deceased was subjected to harassment due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. The trial Court did not find substance in the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution that dowry was demanded by the accused respondents or the deceased was subjected to harassment due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. Accordingly, the trial court acquitted all the accused respondents from the charge of offences punishable under Section 304B & 498A IPC and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 10. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 1.6.1998, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (E.C. Act), Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 110 of 1994, this appeal was filed by the State before the Allahabad High Court on 5.10.1998. The appeal is received by this Court under Section 35 of the U.P. Reorganization Act (Central Act No. 29 of 2000), 2000 for its disposal. 11. The leave was granted by this Court on 6.5.2002 and the appeal was admitted and trial court record was summoned. 12. Perusal of the autopsy report (Ex. A-2) read with the statement of PW3 Dr. V.S. Panwar, clearly establishes on the record that Snehlata had died of septicemia and shock as a result of extensive burn injuries. As such, the death of the woman was unnatural. She was aged 25 years. It is not disputed (rather admitted) that the deceased was married to accused respondent Dinesh Kumar in the year 1987 and died within seven years of her marriage. The only question to be decided by this Court as to whether it was sufficiently shown by the prosecution that the accused respondents made any demand of dowry, and subjected the deceased to cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, due to which she died an unnatural death. 13. No doubt, PW1 Dev Dutt, brother of the deceased, has stated that accused respondents used to demand dowry and they subjected his sister Snehlata (deceased) to cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. However, it is not stated by this witness when the demand was made and when the deceased was subjected to cruelty. Similarly, statement of PW2 Surendra Kumar is also vague as to the allegation of demand of dowry and harassment due to non-fulfillment thereof. 14. In the present case, the defence got adduced evidence of DW1 Deshveer, a tenant in the house of the deceased and that of DW2 Satish Chandra Joshi, a neighbor of the deceased. Similarly, statement of PW2 Surendra Kumar is also vague as to the allegation of demand of dowry and harassment due to non-fulfillment thereof. 14. In the present case, the defence got adduced evidence of DW1 Deshveer, a tenant in the house of the deceased and that of DW2 Satish Chandra Joshi, a neighbor of the deceased. DW1 Deshveer has stated that on 8.11.1992, it was a holiday and he was at his home when at about 10 am, he heard shrieks of Snehlata. According to this witness, he ran towards the house of Snehlata. The witness has further stated that Satish Chandra Joshi (DW2) also came there along with others. The witness further stated that by the time he reached at the spot, Snehlata was ablazed in flames and he along with the witnesses and other family members of the deceased got extinguished the fire. The important point stated by this witness is that he (DW1) asked Snehlata as to how she caught fire, in reply to this, the deceased stated that while cooking food she caught fire. DW1 Deshveer has further stated that thereafter Snehlata was taken to hospital for medical treatment. It is also stated by this witness that on that day, accused respondent Dinesh Kumar was in his village and not in his house where deceased caught fire. 15. DW2 Satish Chandra Joshi is neighbor of the deceased, who has also stated that on the day of incident (8.11.1992), at about 10 am, he heard shrieks and went to the house of the deceased. He further stated that Snehlata was seen ablazed in flames and the fire was got extinguished by one and all present there. This witness has also stated that when asked as to how she caught fire, Snehlata told that while cooking food, the stove blasted and she caught fire. This witness has also stated that Dinesh Kumar was not at his home. 16. DW3 Dinesh Kumar, who got himself examined after permission from the court under Section 315 CrPC, has stated that neither any demand of dowry was made by anyone nor any harassment was done. He has further stated that after Snehlata was taken to hospital, her parents and relatives of the paternal side were informed about the incident. 17. 16. DW3 Dinesh Kumar, who got himself examined after permission from the court under Section 315 CrPC, has stated that neither any demand of dowry was made by anyone nor any harassment was done. He has further stated that after Snehlata was taken to hospital, her parents and relatives of the paternal side were informed about the incident. 17. The trial court, after weighing the evidence of the parties, took the view that in the above circumstances, where there are witnesses of the incident who have stated that deceased had died of accidental fire, it cannot be said that she died an unnatural death due to the harassment on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. 18. It is a settled principle of law that in a case of appeal against acquittal, if the trial court has taken a view which is not perverse, and which could have been taken on the basis of evidence on record, the appellate court should not interfere with the same. Since in the present case, there are witnesses of the scene of incident and their presence at the spot is not unnatural, this Court is of the view that it cannot be said that the trial court has taken a view which is perverse or contrary to the evidence on record. 19. In the above circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Let the trial court record be sent back.