JUDGMENT Per Mandhata Singh, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Prosecution case initiated on written application of one Jaichand Gupta, in brief, is that his daughter Rajani Kumari was married with Krishna Prasad @ Tunna. After the marriage, she went to her in-laws. She was living with her husband with love and affection but accused nos. 1 to 7 were causing torture to her for demand of dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/- from her father. Torture is specified that they (in laws) were causing assault to her and not providing meal. This much was being informed by her. They were giving threatening to set her on fire in case of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. Informant went and asked as why they were causing torture to the deceased, reply was that until Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid in dowry that would continue. Rajani Kumari gave birth of three children, one female and two male. Further, it is said that on 05.10.1996 informant received a letter (postcard) about death of Tunna’s wife (deceased) on 30.09.1996 with request to join the different ceremonies. Family members along with witnesses proceeded for deceased’s sasural. After getting down from train, two persons met them and told that informant’s daughter was killed by accused persons after throttling and her dead body was burnt with help of only 20 kg. wood and one tin kerosene oil. They further told that her tongue was outside of her mouth. Accused persons were asked as to why they had killed the informant’s daughter but a threatening was given for similar consequences. 3. Trial ended in acquittal of accused persons. In all, six witnesses are examined on behalf of prosecution and three on behalf of defence. Some documents are also exhibited for prosecution and defence. Of prosecution witnesses, P.W. 6 Ram Dhyan Singh is I.O. of the case will be discussed if needed on the point of proper investigation and recording of statement of witnesses. In all, six witnesses are examined on behalf of prosecution and three on behalf of defence. Some documents are also exhibited for prosecution and defence. Of prosecution witnesses, P.W. 6 Ram Dhyan Singh is I.O. of the case will be discussed if needed on the point of proper investigation and recording of statement of witnesses. P.W.1 Ranjit Kumar Gupta, brother of the deceased, P.W.2 Manoj Kumar Gupta also brother of the deceased, P.W.3 Jaichand Gupta, father of the deceased and informant of the case are there to state the prosecution case in same manner that they were told by the deceased about demand of dowry and torture for the same at accused persons’ hand that is further added by P.W.3 that in case demand was not fulfilled, deceased would be set on fire. 4. I am not going to discuss lengthy judgment giving several grounds for disbelieving prosecution witnesses but concentrating myself about admissibility of prosecution witnesses. On the point of torture for demand of dowry is the statement of all discussed three witnesses but hearsay, as were told, no demand ever was made from any of them. No doubt, the statement of P.W.3 in paragraph-1 is that he was told by the deceased that all the accused persons were causing cruelty with her for demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- and on failure to set her on fire (to kill). 5. This much of the evidence is admissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, as it relates to cause of death. Another witness P.W.4 is also there to favour the prosecution case that in the night of incident i.e. 29.09.1996 at about 10.00 pm. accused persons were beating Rajani Devi and were stating that her father had not paid Rs. 1,00,000/-. In the morning, she was killed and her dead body was disposed of. P.W.4 has been doubted on the ground that no such statement was made by him under Section 161 of Cr. P.C. His attention has been drawn in paragraph-7 of the cross-examination. There is nothing to further elaborate the same. Again he has been disbelieved on other points that he was near the house of the deceased with several others but none appeared to save her nor the matter was informed to the Police, paragraphs-5 and 6 are to the above effect. As about statement of P.W.3 in paragraph-1 last material witness for the prosecution is P.W.5. Again he has been disbelieved on other points that he was near the house of the deceased with several others but none appeared to save her nor the matter was informed to the Police, paragraphs-5 and 6 are to the above effect. As about statement of P.W.3 in paragraph-1 last material witness for the prosecution is P.W.5. He is stating that after the incident, Jaichand Gupta, P.W.3 had gone to him that his daughter who was residing at Warsaliganj had fallen down from the roof and had died. He requested him to accompany him to Warsaliganj. He along with informant and his two sons came to Warsaliganj by Maruti vehicle to the house of accused persons, saw dead body of informant’s daughter and went to cremation ground where dead body was cremated. 6. This much is the statement of prosecution witness so, no question arises about accepting P.W.3. Further, this much of the statement of P.W.5 has been corroborated by defence witnesses, they are DWs. 1, 2 and 3. So, there appears no mistake committed by the learned trial Court to interfere with the conclusion to reverse the acquittal. 7. Accordingly, the Government Appeal as well as this Cr. Revision is dismissed.