JUDGMENT Mr. Inderjit Singh, J.:- Appellant-Roop Singh alias Jagroop Singh has filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.3.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby accused-appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 304-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 304-B IPC. He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 201 IPC. Both the sentences awarded have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 4.3.1997 complainant Nachhattar Singh produced before SI Hari Mitter an application. In the application, it was mentioned that Gurmit Kaur, sister of the complainant, was married with accused Roop Singh son of Kirpal Singh about eight months ago. Roop Singh used to torture her too much and he had been demanding from them a television and a sum of Rs.10,000/- in cash, but they could not meet out his said demands on account of their poverty. His sister Gurmit Kaur used to tell them that Roop Singh had been harassing her. She was burnt by Roop Singh on 1.3.1997 and her cremation was also done by him without their presence. Information regarding this incident was given to them by one person of Village Babarpur and hence an application was filed. On the basis of this application, FIR was registered against the accused-appellant. Spot was inspected. Rough site plan was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded on the same day. The Investigating Officer went to the cremation ground and on demarcation of one Roop Singh son of Jang Singh, he collected bones, ash etc. from the cremation spot of Gurmit Kaur, which were taken into Police custody after preparing a sealed parcel. After necessary investigation, challan was presented. 3. Statements of witnesses were recorded on the same day. The Investigating Officer went to the cremation ground and on demarcation of one Roop Singh son of Jang Singh, he collected bones, ash etc. from the cremation spot of Gurmit Kaur, which were taken into Police custody after preparing a sealed parcel. After necessary investigation, challan was presented. 3. On presentation of challan, the trial Court finding prima facie case against the accused framed charges for the offences under Sections 304-B and 201 IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 HC Major Singh, who is a formal witness, who tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PX. PW-2 Nachhattar Singh complainant mainly deposed as per prosecution version. PW-3 Roop Singh son of Jang Singh mainly deposed that Gurmit Kaur was married with accused Roop Singh on 1.3.1997. He went to Village Babarpur for his domestic work. At about 5.00 p.m., he heard a news regarding the death of Gurmit Kaur by burns. He went to the house of accused Roop Singh, where so many persons and women were present there. The dead body of Gurmit Kaur was lying in her in-laws’ house, which was covered with white sheet. He identified the dead body of Gurmit Kaur after removing the sheet from her face. She died by burns. He also attended the marriage of Gurmit Kaur with Roop Singh, accused. Accused Roop Singh was present in his house when he saw the dead body and he inquired from him about the death of Gurmit Kaur. Roop Singh told him that Gurmit Kaur had got burns accidentally while doing domestic work and he had sent message to the parents of Gurmeet Kaur at Sunam. Nobody was present from the side of the parents of deceased. They waited throughout night for the arrival of her parents and in the morning of 2.3.1997 Gurmit Kaur was cremated in the absence of her parents. On 4.3.1997, the Investigating Officer collected bones and ash from the place where Gurmit Kaur was cremated at his instance. PW-4 Shivdev Singh also deposed that he knows accused Roop Singh. On 4.3.1997, he came to know about the death of Gurmit Kaur. He went to the house of the accused at Village Babarpur. Accused Roop Singh was present in his house. PW-4 Shivdev Singh also deposed that he knows accused Roop Singh. On 4.3.1997, he came to know about the death of Gurmit Kaur. He went to the house of the accused at Village Babarpur. Accused Roop Singh was present in his house. Roop Singh had confessed before him that he had burnt his wife and a wrong message has been sent at Sunam to the parents of the deceased. The cremation of Gurmit Kaur was done without conducting post-mortem examination and without sending any information to her parents. PW-5 Amrik Singh, Draftsman mainly deposed regarding preparing of scaled site plan. PW-6 SI Hari Mitter is the Investigating Officer, who mainly deposed regarding conducting of investigation by him in this case. PW-7 Constable Sukhvinder Singh is a formal witness, who tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PE. PW-8 ASI Atma Singh deposed regarding partly investigation conducted by him in the present case. The report Ex.PF of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh was tendered in evidence and the evidence of the prosecution was closed. 5. At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and was confronted with the evidence of the prosecution but he denied the correctness of the incriminating evidence and pleaded himself as innocent. He deposed that his wife was living happily with him. No dowry was taken or demanded by him from his wife, nor she was harassed by him. On the day of her death, she was ironing her clothes and received an electric shock and died due to electric shock. She was never tortured by him on account of dowry demand. When she died, he duly informed her parents and complainant immediately on the same day and they came also on the same night along with relatives and neighbours and the last funeral ceremony was done in their presence and in the presence of villagers and other relatives. The case had been got registered after due deliberation and consultation to exploit the unfortunate death of his wife. He never demanded TV or Rs.10,000/- from his wife. 6. In defence, the appellant-accused examined DW-1 Tarsem Singh, who mainly deposed that in March, 1997, he was the Sarpanch of Village Babarpur. On 1.3.1997 at about 5.00 p.m., he came to know that Gurmit Kaur wife of accused had died due to electric shock while ironing the clothes. He never demanded TV or Rs.10,000/- from his wife. 6. In defence, the appellant-accused examined DW-1 Tarsem Singh, who mainly deposed that in March, 1997, he was the Sarpanch of Village Babarpur. On 1.3.1997 at about 5.00 p.m., he came to know that Gurmit Kaur wife of accused had died due to electric shock while ironing the clothes. He himself went to the house of accused Roop Singh and saw the dead body of deceased, who died due to electric shock. Accused Roop Singh was not present in the house at that time. One Gurmit Singh, Ex Fauji along with other person went to Sunam to inform the parents of the deceased. All the relatives of the deceased came to Village Babarpur on the same night. The dead body of the deceased was cremated on the next day in the presence of the parents, brothers, relatives and neighbours of the deceased. All the villagers of Babarpur also attended the funeral ceremonies. The deceased was residing happily with her husband and there was no dispute between them regarding the demand of dowry etc. Nobody complained against the accused at the time of cremation of the dead body or afterwards. DW-2 Gurmit Singh also mainly deposed the same facts. He stated that on asking of the Sarpanch of Village, Tarsem Singh, he along with one Titu of Vanwala went to Mohalla Subhash Nagar, Sunam, to inform the parents of the deceased. They went there and informed them. The parents, brothers, other relatives and neighbours came to Village Babarpur on the same night. The dead body was cremated on the next day in the presence of the parents of the deceased, brothers, other relatives and villagers. The people of Village Babarpur also attended the last funeral ceremony. The deceased was residing happily with her husband and he never demanded any dowry articles from the parents of the deceased. 7. After going through the evidence and material on record and hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court vide above impugned judgment and order convicted the accusedappellant for the offences as mentioned above. 8. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the present case there is no post-mortem examination conducted on the dead body of Gurmit Kaur. Therefore, there is no report regarding cause of death. 8. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the present case there is no post-mortem examination conducted on the dead body of Gurmit Kaur. Therefore, there is no report regarding cause of death. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that as per the statement of the PWs itself the information was given to the parents of the deceased. She further argued that the cremation was not held hurriedly by the accused-appellant. Rather, they waited for the whole night and the cremation was done on the next morning in the presence of villagers and other relatives of the deceased. After three days only brother of the deceased gave an application without stating any specific instance or any specific particulars but by leveling general allegations. Learned counsel further argued that even the parents of the deceased neither made any complaint to the Police nor they appeared as witnesses to support the version of complainant Nachhattar Singh. There is only uncorroborated statement of Nachhattar Singh and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 9. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent-State argued that the PWs have duly proved the case of the prosecution and there being no merit in the appeal, it should be dismissed. 10. I have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully and have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent-State. 11. From the evidence on record, I find merit in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant. PW-2 Nachhattar Singh made material improvements in his statement and in cross-examination when he was confronted with his statement, he stated that he had got recorded in his statement to the Police that his sister used to tell them that her husband had been beating her and they used to send her back after persuasion. He was confronted with his complaint Ex.PA, where it was not so recorded. It was also not found mention that on 29.2.1997 his sister along with accused came to Sunam and the accused demanded Rs.10,000/- and a television. The attention of the accused was drawn to the complaint Ex.PA where it was not so recorded regarding the occurrence. He was confronted with his complaint Ex.PA, where it was not so recorded. It was also not found mention that on 29.2.1997 his sister along with accused came to Sunam and the accused demanded Rs.10,000/- and a television. The attention of the accused was drawn to the complaint Ex.PA where it was not so recorded regarding the occurrence. Again the witness was confronted on the facts that accused on the said date was aggressive and he stated that they would face its consequences. This fact is not found mention in Ex.PA. The complainant also stated in his complaint that Gurmit Singh informed them regarding the death of his sister. In cross-examination, PW-2 Nachhattar Singh admitted that he and accused Roop Singh are labourers. At the time of engagement, it was clearly settled that no dowry articles would be given at the time of solemnization of marriage. The marriage was accordingly performed very simple. PW-2 Nachhattar Singh further stated that the person who informed them regarding the death of his sister reached at his house at about 10.00 p.m. and he came back to Village Babarpur. Two other persons were also with him. Out of them, one was driver, one was Gurmit Singh Fauji and he did not know the third person. Further, he also admitted in cross-examination that the dead body was cremated on 2.3.1997. He also admitted that information regarding the death of his sister was given to them at the night on the day of death. They did not attend the cremation. So, in view of this cross-examination, it cannot be held that accused tried to cremate the dead body of Gurmit Kaur without informing the parents of the deceased. Rather, the parents were informed at the earliest and the accused has not done any act to hurriedly cremate the dead body. Even the evidence shows that so many villagers visited the house of accused-appellant at the time of death of Gurmit Kaur. Even PW-3 stated that on 1.3.1997 at about 5.00 p.m. when he heard regarding the death of Gurmit Kaur, he went to the house of the accused-appellant and saw the face of Gurmit Kaur after removing the white sheet from the face. He also stated that accused told him at that time that message had been given to the parents of the deceased. He also stated that accused told him at that time that message had been given to the parents of the deceased. He also stated that they waited for the whole night for the arrival of the parents of the deceased and on the next day dead body was cremated. His examination-in-chief also does not create any doubt and no adverse inference can be drawn in any way against the appellant. Even PW-3 attended the cremation. He is the uncle of the deceased. If there was anything unnatural, then the natural course for him was to report the matter to the Police but he had not taken any such step. Even PW-3 had not asked the accused or anybody else to get the post-mortem examination conducted on the dead body of Gurmit Kaur. His conduct that he did not make telephone call to the parents of the deceased regarding her death also looks unnatural. He stated that the parents as well as the brother of the deceased met him on 2.3.1997 in Village Babarpur at about 8.00/9.00 a.m. which fact also supports the defence version that the parents and brother came to Village Babarpur and cremation was done in their presence. PW-4 Shivdev Singh is relative of Gurmit Kaur. He has stated that accused has made extra-judicial confession before him on 4.3.1997. He being the close relative of Gurmit Kaur cannot be believed. In cross-examination, he stated that the person who informed him went to their house on 1.3.1997 at about 7.00 p.m. On the same night, they reached Village Babarpur. He made his statement to the Police on 4.3.1997. With him, the statements of Nachhattar Singh and Roop Singh were also recorded. They did not go to attend the cremation of deceased. This cross-examination also supports the version of the defence that information was given to the parents of the deceased. 12. From the perusal of the evidence on record, I find that firstly there is nothing on the record to show demand of dowry. Rather, as per cross-examination of PW-2 Nachhattar Singh-complainant, it was a simple marriage and no dowry was given and it was agreed by the parties that simple marriage was to be performed. Secondly, there are no specific instances given as to when the demand was raised by the accused. Thirdly, there are no specific instances of harassment regarding demand of dowry. Secondly, there are no specific instances given as to when the demand was raised by the accused. Thirdly, there are no specific instances of harassment regarding demand of dowry. DW-1 is Sarpanch of the Village. He has supported the version of the appellant. The version of the appellant is also corroborated from the cross-examination of the PWs. There is no post-mortem examination in the present case. There is also no corroborated piece of evidence to support the allegations levelled against the appellant. Therefore, a reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution version. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, by giving benefit of doubt to the appellant, he is acquitted of the charges as framed against him. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana are not as per law and the same are liable to be set aside. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted of the charges framed as against him. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the trial Court are set aside. Since the appellant/accused is on bail, therefore, his bail/surety bonds stand discharged. --------0.B.S.0------------