JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgement dated 30.04.1994 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No.29/1991, whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused-respondents from the offences punishable under sections 302 and 498-A Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.11.1989 at about 07:20 A.M., Station House Officer, Police Station, Kotegate, District Bikaner had received an information on telephone from the Medical Jurist, PBN Hospital, Bikaner to the effect that Salu wife of Zafar Khan was admitted in the hospital with burn injuries and she died at about 06:20 A.M. On receiving this information, the police registered Marg FIR No.25/1989 (Ex.P/5) under Section 174 CrPC and started investigation. At the hospital, the police had prepared Fard Surat Haal Lash (Ex.P/3) and also prepared Panchnama (Ex.P/4), wherein it is mentioned that Salu wife of Zafar Khan had poured kerosene upon her and thereafter, lit the fire, on account of which she died. After 15 days i.e. 25.11.1989, PW.1 Vali Mohammed son of Noor Khan-father of the deceased Salu had submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) to the Circle Officer, City Bikaner stating that his daughter Salu was married to accused Zafar Khan about nine years ago and in the marriage, the dowry was also given but accused Zafar Khan and his mother Janni were not satisfied with the same and demanded money and other things. It is also stated that accused respondents used to treat his daughter with cruelty. It is further submitted that after the marriage of his daughter with Zafar Khan, no issue was born and on account of that also accused respondents used to taunt her on many occasions. It is alleged that on 10.11.1989 at about 05:00 A.M., his sister Smt. Khatun came to his house and informed that in the night, accused Zafar Khan and Jannani assaulted his daughter Salu and, she heard now that they poured kerosene on her and put her into fire. On receiving this information, he along with his son Ibrahim daughter-in-law Balan, Khatun and Ghisu Khan went to Zafar Khan's house, where they found Salma lying in burnt condition in the underground and she was groaning. When they asked about the incident, she told that in the night, the accused-respondents put her on fire after pouring kerosene on her. On receiving this information, he along with his son Ibrahim daughter-in-law Balan, Khatun and Ghisu Khan went to Zafar Khan's house, where they found Salma lying in burnt condition in the underground and she was groaning. When they asked about the incident, she told that in the night, the accused-respondents put her on fire after pouring kerosene on her. They took Salma to the hospital, where also she informed the Doctor about the same and during the course of treatment, the police also reached there and Salma had informed the same thing to the police too. It is alleged that as the accused-Zafar Khan is an influential person and his relative is an officer in the police, the police is not investigating properly and is trying to save the accused. 3. On the instructions of the Circle Officer, City Bikaner, police registered FIR No.401/1989 (Ex.P/9) for the offence punishable under sections 302 and 498A Indian Penal Code against the accused-respondents. After conclusion of the investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the accused respondents for the aforesaid offences. The case was committed to the trial court and the trial court had framed the charges against the accused-respondents for the offence punishable under sections 302 and 498-A Indian Penal Code. 4. On behalf of the prosecution, as many as 8 witnesses were produced and several documents were also exhibited. The statements of accused-respondents were recorded under section 313 Cr PC, wherein they denied the allegations and stated that since the deceased was issueless, she was sad and therefore, she committed suicide. It is further stated that the accused-respondents had never pressurised her for dowry and not treated her with cruelty and they have falsely been implicated by the family members of the deceased. One witness was also produced in defence. The trial court, after hearing counsel for the parties and after taking into consideration the evidence available on record, acquitted the accused-respondents from the offences punishable under sections 302 and 498-A Indian Penal Code vide impugned judgement. 5. Assailing the impugned judgement, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the unnatural death of deceased Salu due to burn injuries was fully proved by the prosecution by exhibiting the post mortem report Ex.P/2 and by producing prosecution witness PW.4 Dr. P.N.Mathur. 5. Assailing the impugned judgement, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the unnatural death of deceased Salu due to burn injuries was fully proved by the prosecution by exhibiting the post mortem report Ex.P/2 and by producing prosecution witness PW.4 Dr. P.N.Mathur. It is submitted that from the statements of PW.1 Vali Mohammed, PW.2 Khatun, PW.3 Valan and PW.5 Ghasi Khan, the prosecution has sufficiently proved that the accused-respondents treated the deceased with cruelty and on 10.11.2009 assaulted her and also poured kerosene on her and put her in fire. It is submitted that in view of the statements of the above witnesses, charges against the accused-respondents for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 498-A Indian Penal Code are fully proved but the learned trial court has grossly erred in acquitting the accused-respondents without taking into consideration the above evidence, therefore, the impugned judgement is liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused respondents have supported the impugned judgement and argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused-respondents for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 498-A Indian Penal Code and, therefore, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondents. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has rightly disbelieved the testimony of PW.1 Vali Mohammed, PW.2 Khatun, PW.3 Valan and PW.5 Ghasi Khan as none of the witnesses has stated that he/she had seen the accused persons committing the crime. It is also contended that PW.1 Vali Mohammed, during his cross-examination, had admitted that since he did not see who had put his daughter into fire, therefore, he does not know how his daughter was burnt. It is argued that PW.2 Khatun in her statement has specifically stated that Salma was simply saying that she is burning and nothing else. Learned counsel for the accused-respondents has submitted that testimonies of PW.3 Valan and PW.5 Ghisu Khan are full of contradictions and improvements and therefore, the trial court has rightly disbelieved the said testimonies. He has further argued that PW.6 Ratan Singh the then C.O. City, Bikaner has specifically stated in his statement that during the course of investigation, he found that offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code was not made out against the accused-respondents. He has further argued that PW.6 Ratan Singh the then C.O. City, Bikaner has specifically stated in his statement that during the course of investigation, he found that offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code was not made out against the accused-respondents. It is contended that in view of the above facts and circumstances, the trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the accused respondents from the offences punishable under sections 302 and 498-A Indian Penal Code. Therefore, no case for interference is made out. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinised the record. 8. It is not in dispute that initially on 10.11.1989 a Marg FIR Ex.P/5 was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. by the police on the basis of information received from the medical jurist PBM hospital, Bikaner. The police prepared Fard Surat Hal Lash Ex.P/3 and Panchnama Ex.P/4 on the same day. Till 25.11.1989, the complainant PW-1 Vali Mohd. did not raise any grievance, however, vide Ex.P/1, he filed complaint to the Circle Officer alleging that his daughter Salu was murdered by the accused-respondents on 10.11.1989. In Ex.P/1, he specifically alleged that her sister PW-2 Khatun informed him on 10.11.1989 that in the night, the accused-respondents assaulted his daughter Salu and thereafter poured kerosene upon her and put her to fire. He further stated that when they reached at the house of Zafar Khan and asked Salu about incident, she informed that the accused-respondents assaulted her in the night and thereafter poured kerosene on her and put her to fire. However, before the trial court, PW-1 Vali Mohd. has specifically denied that he has made the above averments in the complaint Ex.P/1. However, before the trial court, PW-1 Vali Mohd. has specifically denied that he has made the above averments in the complaint Ex.P/1. The relevant portion of the cross-examination of PW-1 Vali is reproduced hereunder:- " ;g lgh gS fd lyek dks eSaus viuh vka[kksa ls tykrs ;k tyrs gq;s ugha ns[kk FkkA eSaus vka[kksa ls ugha ns[kk Fkk] blfy, ugha crk ldrk fd lyek dSls tyh FkhA esjh lkyq ls ckr ugha gqbZ FkhA lkyq us lklq ds }kjk tykus ds vykok vkSj dksbZ 'kCn ugha cksyk FkkA esjs izkFkZuk i= izn'kZ ih&1 ds iSjk 6 esa LFkku , ls ch geus tc mls iwNk rks mlus crk;k fd mls jkr dks tQj [kka o mldh lklq us ekjihV fd;k vkSj dgk fd bUgksaus gh eq>s dsjkslhu Mkydj tyk;k gS fQj ge ;kuh ihgj ls tks x;s Fks oks lyek dks vLirky ys x;s ogka Hkh geus ;gh dgk fd bls tyk;k gS lyek us MkDVj dks Hkh viuh ifr }kjk ekjihV djuk ekrk tUuh ds dgus ls vkx yxkdj tykuk crk;k] ;gh ckr ge lc us Hkh crk;h dh lyek us gedks Hkh ;gh crk;k gS] lquh] ;g ckr eSaus ugha fy[kkbZ FkhA ;fn fy[kh gqbZ gS rks xyr fy[kh gqbZ gSA izn'kZ ih& x1 dk fgLlk lh ls iSjk&7 ;g fd iqfyl Hkh lyek dh e`R;q ds mijkUr vLirky esa vk xbZ Fkh mls izkFkhZ ,oa lHkh us ;gh dgk fd lyek us mUgsa ;gh crk;k Fkk fd mldh lklq tUuh us mls xkfy;ka nh ekjihV fd;k mlds ifr us Hkh ekjihV djds viuh ekrk ds dgus ls dSjkslhu Mky dj vkx yxk nh] lquh ;g ckr eSaus rks viuh nj[okLr esa ugha fy[kokbZ FkhA lyek dh yk'k dk iksLVekVZe gqvk] iapk;rukek o QnZ lqjr gky yk[k cuokbZ rc rd esjk yM+dk lRrkj ogha ij ekStwn FkkA lRrkj dh mez ml oDr djhc 35&36 lky FkhA og le>nkj gSA " 9. From the above, it is clear that PW-1 Vali Mohd. has retracted from the averments of the written complaint Ex.P/1 while deposing before the trial court. 10. Similarly PW-2 Khatun in her statement-in-chief before the court has specifically said that deceased was crying and simply said that she is burning and when she reached at the spot, accused-respondent Zafar asked her to go away from there. has retracted from the averments of the written complaint Ex.P/1 while deposing before the trial court. 10. Similarly PW-2 Khatun in her statement-in-chief before the court has specifically said that deceased was crying and simply said that she is burning and when she reached at the spot, accused-respondent Zafar asked her to go away from there. The relevant part of the statement-in-chief of PW-2 Khatun is produced hereunder:- " lyek dks ejs gq, iksus pkj lky gks x;s gSaA eSa VqafV;k ij ikuh ysus xbZ Fkh lyek ds llqjky ds ?kj dh rjQ jksyk gks jgk Fkk eSa mlds llqjky esa xbZ ogka ij lyek dk ifr tQj feyk vUnj ls lyek dk vkokt vk jgh Fkh fd gks; eka cyq js gks; eka cyq jsA esjs dks tQj us dgk fd ;gka ls pyh tk rsjh dksbZ ;gka t:jr ugha gSA rc bl ij eSa lyek ds firk dks mlds tyus dh lwpuk nsus pyh xbZA eSaus lyek ds firk dks lwpuk ns nhA bl ij lyek dk firk] bldk HkkbZ] ?khlq [kka iM+kSlh] vkfn lyek ds llqjky x;sA " 11. However, in her cross-examination, PW.2 Khatun has specifically admitted that she did not see the accused-respondent burning Salma and she was only saying that she is burning-she is burning and did not say anything else. The relevant portion of cross-examination of PW-2 Khatun is reproduced hereunder:- " eSaus lyek dks ekjihV eqyfteku }kjk djrs gq;s o tykrs gq;s ugha ns[kk FkkA lyek dk llqjky Hkjs eksgYys esa gSA esjs o lyek ds edku ds chp esa dbZ edkukr o nqdku gSA lyek dsoy ;gh cksy jgh Fkh fd gks; eka cyq js gks; eka cyq jsA blds vykok og vkSj dqN Hkh ugha cksy jgh FkhA " 12. PW-3 Vala though in her statement before the Court has said that at the place of incident Salu was crying that her husband and mother-in-law put her into fire but her version is not corroborated by other prosecution witnesses namely PW-1 Vali Mohd. and PW-2 Khatun, who were also present at the place of incident. 13. So far as PW-5 Ghasi Khan is concerned, it is noticed that he is one of the witnesses of Fard Surat Hal Lash Ex.P/3 and Panchnama Ex.P/4 prepared by the police on 10.11.1989. and PW-2 Khatun, who were also present at the place of incident. 13. So far as PW-5 Ghasi Khan is concerned, it is noticed that he is one of the witnesses of Fard Surat Hal Lash Ex.P/3 and Panchnama Ex.P/4 prepared by the police on 10.11.1989. In the panchnama, it is mentioned that after consultation with panchas, it is concluded that Salu wife of Zafar Khan put fire on herself by pouring kerosene and there is no doubt about the fact that the deceased committed suicide. 14. PW-5 Ghasi Khan, in his statement before the court, has stated that when he reached the house of Zafar Khan, Salu was crying that her mother-in-law put her into fire, however, the said testimony of PW-5 Ghasi Khan is not believable because he himself was a witness of Fard Surat Hal Lash Ex.P/3 and Panchnama Ex.P/4 prepared on 10.11.1989 and it is unbelievable that till recording of his statement by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 9.12.1989, he did not disclose this fact to anybody else. The trial court has rightly disbelieved the testimony of PW-5 Ghasi Khan while observing that once on 10.11.1989 he opined that deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene on herself and putting her into fire but later on he is telling a lie before the Court that the accused-respondents poured kerosene on the deceased and put her on fire. It is also noticed that all the witnesses namely PW-1 Vali Mhod, PW-2 Khatun, PW-3 Vala and PW-5 Ghasi Khan have admitted in their court statements that when they reached house of Zafar Khan, the accused-respondent Smt. Janni was not there. It is also noticed that PW-8 the then Circle inspector has admitted in his statement that during the course of investigation, he did not find involvement of the accused-respondents in commission of crime for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. 15. Though, the prosecution by exhibiting post mortem report Ex.P/2 and by producing PW-4 Dr. P.N. Mathur has established that deceased Salu wife of Zafar Khan died on account of burn injuries, but the prosecution has failed to produce cogent and reliable evidence to establish the charge that the accused-respondents burned the deceased after pouring kerosene on her. Therefore, the accused-respondents have rightly not been convicted by the trial court for the offences punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. 16. Therefore, the accused-respondents have rightly not been convicted by the trial court for the offences punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. 16. So far as the offence punishable under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code is concerned, after going through the statements of PW-1 Vali Mohd., PW-2 Khatun, PW-3 Valla and PW-5 Ghasi Khan, it is clear that none of the witnesses has specifically alleged that the accused-respondents have demanded dowry or treated her with cruelty and, therefore, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondents for the offence punishable under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code. 17. In view of above discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgement. Hence, this appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. *******