Judgment : 1. An F.I.R. was lodged by PW1 Rajeshwari against the accused-respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, on 29.10.1999 at P.S. Vikasnagar. According to PW1, her daughter Usha was married to accused-respondent Jagdish Prasad on 4.3.1999 according to Hindu rites and rituals. Her in-laws were not satisfied with the articles given in marriage. They started harassing Usha for want of bringing sufficient dowry. Her daughter asked PW1 that her in-laws were demanding Rs. 25,000/-. If their demand was not met, she would be killed. PW1 gave Rs. 2,000/-. The harassment continued unabated. In the intervening night of 27/28.10.1999, PW1 came to know that her daughter was killed. On 28.10.1999, PW 2 Ramesh Chandra Lakhera gave report (Ext-Ka-2), but when PW1 came to know that the victim was killed for dowry, therefore she addressed another application (Ext-Ka-1) to police station of Vikasnagar on 29.10.1999. Earlier Ramesh Chandra Lakhera (PW-2) gave a report to S.O. Vikasnagar informing the S.O. that Usha died. PW2 suspected that Usha died an unnatural death. Her father was posted in irrigation department in District Bahraich. According to PW2, the reason of death of victim could not be ascertained. 2. After the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused–respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304B I.P.C. and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began and prosecution opened it’s case, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304B I.P.C. and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 were framed against the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PW1 Rajeshwari (mother of deceased), PW 2 Ramesh (cousin of deceased), PW 3 Anandi Prasad (father of deceased), PW 4 Km. Rekha (cousin of deceased), PW 5 Om Prakash, PW 6 Dr. Bharat Kishor (pathologist) and PW 7 Smt. Vimla Sharma were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons in statements under section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which they said that they were falsely implicated in this case. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned trial court exonerated the accused persons of the charges leveled against them, vide impugned judgment and order dated 10.07.2001. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons in statements under section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which they said that they were falsely implicated in this case. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned trial court exonerated the accused persons of the charges leveled against them, vide impugned judgment and order dated 10.07.2001. Aggrieved against the same, present Government Appeal was preferred by the State. 3. PW6 Dr. Bharat Kishor conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased on 28.10.1999, at 4:15 P.M. The medical officer found a ligature mark on left side neck of deceased. No other injury was found on her body. Cause of death of deceased was asphyxia due to hanging. 4. The question which arises for consideration is, what made the victim to commit……….In such a situation, learned trial court did not commit mistake in acquitting the accused- respondents giving them benefit of a reasonable doubt. When two views are possible then the one which is in favour of the accused, should be accepted. No interference is called for in the impugned judgment and order. 5. It was a not a case of strangulation, but a case of hanging. The panches were of the opinion, in the inquest report, that the victim died of asphyxia. Whether it was a ‘dowry-death’ or not? PW 7 disclosed that victim’s father-in-law and mother-in-law told her that victim committed suicide. Victim died within seven months of her marriage. 6. PW1 said, among other things, that the sister-in-law of victim used to harass the victim. She was a widow. PW1 admitted that her son-in-law worked in a telephone company in Haryana. The son-in-law was against the employment of his wife (deceased). PW1 said that victim’s husband was annoyed with her and, therefore, he killed her. On the one hand, PW1 said that her in-laws demanded dowry, yet, on the other hand, she said that victim’s husband was an angry man, who did not want victim to accept the job and, therefore, he killed victim. The victim died on karwachauth day, according to PW1. There was a function on the said day, in which her husband Jagdish did not come. 7. PW2 although supported prosecution story but admitted that fifteen days prior to her death, Jagdish (husband) wrote a letter to Usha, conveying that he was an angry man. The victim died on karwachauth day, according to PW1. There was a function on the said day, in which her husband Jagdish did not come. 7. PW2 although supported prosecution story but admitted that fifteen days prior to her death, Jagdish (husband) wrote a letter to Usha, conveying that he was an angry man. Whereas Usha’s father-in-law and mother-in-law wanted her to accept an employment, victim also wanted to join her job, but her husband was against the same. 8. PW 2 did not assign any reason for the death of victim in his F.I.R. PW 3, the father of victim supported prosecution story saying that victim’s in-laws harassed her for bringing dowry. No pahchayat was convened to settle the dispute. PW3 admitted that Ext-Ka-4 was not in his hand writing. He could not disclose as to who wrote the same. PW 3 further admitted that Jagdish wrote Ext Ka-3 and 2-3 other letters. Jagdish wrote normal things in his letter. It signifies that the relationship between the two was normal. Had there been any demand of dowry, victim’s husband must have written something in his letters including Ext-Ka-3. Documentary evidence thus did not support oral evidence. Had victim’s husband a greedy man, he would have been a happy man to see that his wife was earning something for the family. His mental make suggests that he did not demand dowry from his wif’s parents/brothers. 9. Although PW 4 also supported the prosecution story, but her evidence did not inspire confidence. PW 5 was signatory to inquest report. PW 6 was specific that it was a case of suicide and not of strangulation. PW 7 did not support prosecution story. Investigating officer was not examined by the prosecution. 10. The scribe of Ext Ka-1 and Ka -2 was the same. Firstly he wrote Ext-Ka2 on the dictation of PW2. Thereafter he wrote Ext-Ka1 on the dictation of PW1. The scribe himself did not come in the witness box to clarify the position. The second version was not repeated by PW1 in the court. First F.I.R. was lodged by the brother of the deceased of 28.10.1999 and the 2nd F.I.R. was lodged by the mother of the deceased on 29.10.1999. Nothing was said in the first F.I.R. about demand of dowry. Second F.I.R. was hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. PW 1 said that her son-in-law was against his wife’s joining service. First F.I.R. was lodged by the brother of the deceased of 28.10.1999 and the 2nd F.I.R. was lodged by the mother of the deceased on 29.10.1999. Nothing was said in the first F.I.R. about demand of dowry. Second F.I.R. was hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. PW 1 said that her son-in-law was against his wife’s joining service. Assuming for the sake of argument that some money was demanded, the same was, at the most, in the form of financial assistance. The possibility of demanding dowry is remote, in the wake of the fact that the husband himself did not want his wife to accept an offer of employment. Ext-Ka 3 (letter written by husband of deceased) nowhere indicated demand of dowry by victim’s in-laws. The tone and tenor of Ext Ka-3 underlined that everything was normal. It was reiterated by the husband of the victim that he was against the employment of his wife. He wrote to his mother-in-law that Usha (his wife) did not write any letter to him. It appears that the victim was not happy with her husband (the reason may be any thing) and, therefore, she decided to end her life by committing suicide. The husband expressed anguish at the behavior of his wife, who did not bother to write any letter to her. 11. On evaluation of the evidence tendered by the prosecution thus brought on record, non-demand of dowry came to the fore. In other words, dowry was not demanded by the victim’s in-laws. At least, that was not the reason behind the commission of suicide by the victim. The essential ingredients of ‘dowry-death’ were not proved beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. There was hardly a distance of 1 ½ km. between the parental home and matrimonial home of the deceased. 12. Learned trial court therefore, committed no mistake in holding that the prosecution was unable to prove the case against the accused-respondents beyond reasonable doubt, saying that it was a case of ‘suicide’ and not ‘strangulation’, in which demand of dowry had no role to play. 13. In such a situation, learned trial court did not commit mistake in acquitting the accused-respondents of the charges leveled against them. When two views are possible, then the one which is in favour of the accused should be accepted. No interference is thus called for in the impugned judgment and order. 14. 13. In such a situation, learned trial court did not commit mistake in acquitting the accused-respondents of the charges leveled against them. When two views are possible, then the one which is in favour of the accused should be accepted. No interference is thus called for in the impugned judgment and order. 14. Government Appeal therefore fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.