JUDGMENT Per: Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. The State has assailed the judgment and order dated 19.08.2010 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag while adjudicating the Sessions Trial No.16 of 2008. For the sake of convenience, accused Vijay Lal is referred as ‘A1’, Raju Lal ‘A2’, Makan Lal ‘A3’, Indru Lal ‘A4’, Shyam Lal ‘A5’, Tulsi Ram ‘A6’, Mohan Lal ‘A7’, Ghina Lal ‘A8’ and Charan Singh as ‘A9’. A1, A2 and A3 are the real brothers, against whom the Charge was levelled by the Trial Court for the offences of Section 498-A, 304-B and 201 IPC, whereas the remaining accused persons faced the charge only for the offence of Section 201 IPC. The crime bore the number 550 of 2007 at Police Station & District Rudraprayag. All the accused persons were acquitted from the charges levelled against them. 2. Investigation commenced on lodging the first information report (Ex.Ka-1) by Suresh Chandra (PW1), the real brother of deceased, with the facts that his younger sister Ms. Ujla was wedded to A1 in the month of May, 2007 as per accepted rituals and at the instance of in-laws of his sister, Masantu Lal (father of deceased) had helped in construction of house for his daughter at her in-laws village. In July, 2007, soon after the marriage, Ms. Ujla fell ill and the expenses of her treatment were incurred by her father. Informant and A1 carried the victim to Delhi for the treatment. The complainant returned after 8-10 days, whereas Ms. Ujla returned to her in-laws house on 10.12.2007. Moreover, the members of in-laws family performed some ‘Puja’ in their house, where the parents of the victim were not invited. In the evening of 21.12.2007, Laxman (nephew of deceased) came to the informant’s house with the message that the victim was seriously ailing. Having got this information, Smt. Sauni Devi and Mamraj (mother and brother of deceased respectively) went to the in-laws house and found that Ms. Ujla had passed away. On the next day i.e. 22.12.2007, the informant along with some other people of village went to the in-laws village and enquired the cause of such death but could not find any satisfactory reply. So, on 23.12.2007, this first information report was given to Police Station, Rudraprayag with the allegations that Ms. Ujla had passed away. On the next day i.e. 22.12.2007, the informant along with some other people of village went to the in-laws village and enquired the cause of such death but could not find any satisfactory reply. So, on 23.12.2007, this first information report was given to Police Station, Rudraprayag with the allegations that Ms. Ujla had been killed by A1, A2 and A3 on account of some controversy regarding the payment of money towards the house construction. The deceased was cremated by her in-laws with the assistance of villagers without even obtaining the consent of members of her native family. This report could be lodged at 1 PM only against A1, A2 and A3, for the offences of section 304-B and 201 IPC, the Chick Report whereof is Ex.Ka-3. 3. Having received this report, the police swung into action and at the instance of A1, A2 and A3, the portion of burnt dead body of deceased was recovered at the bank of nearby river which was exhumated from the pit. Such considerably burnt body had been left for only 2½ feet and no organ thereof was found complete. At that time, the members of the native family as well as other villagers were present on the spot along with the Sub Divisional Magistrate of the area. 4. Inquest report (Ex.Ka-2) was prepared on 23.12.2007 at 5 PM. Since the injuries were not clear, therefore, the cause of death could not be ascertained and as such, the opinion to get done the autopsy was expressed. 5. On 24.12.2007 at 4:30 PM, the post-mortem examination on the dead body was conducted by PW9 Dr. Shailendra Kumar, the report whereof is Ex.Ka-5. The medical officer found the burnt remnants of vertebral column along with pelvic bone and burn remnants of soft tissues attached to the vertebral column and pelvic bone. Since the cause of death could not be ascertained, hence the pelvis, vertebral column and soft tissues were preserved for the purpose of chemical analysis. 6. In the report (Ex.Ka-21) submitted by the Forensic Laboratory, nothing poisonous could be found in either of the substances, so sent for the purpose of examination. 7. The arrest of accused persons was effected vide memos Ex.Ka-6, Ka-8 and Ka-18. 8. Investigation of the case culminated into the submission of chargesheet (Ex.Ka-22) against all the accused persons, named above. 9. In the report (Ex.Ka-21) submitted by the Forensic Laboratory, nothing poisonous could be found in either of the substances, so sent for the purpose of examination. 7. The arrest of accused persons was effected vide memos Ex.Ka-6, Ka-8 and Ka-18. 8. Investigation of the case culminated into the submission of chargesheet (Ex.Ka-22) against all the accused persons, named above. 9. They were charged accordingly, as mentioned hereinbefore. 10. Prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses, namely, PW1 Suresh Chand (informant), PW2 Masantu Lal (father of deceased), PW3 Smt. Sauni Devi (mother of deceased), PW4 Smt. Bhag Dei (sister-in-law of deceased), PW5 Constable Satish Chand (who prepared the Chick FIR and made entry in G.D.), PW6 Raghuveer Singh (witness of inquest), PW7 Basantu Lal (uncle of deceased), PW8 Dr. Shailendra Kumar (who conducted autopsy) and PW9 A.L. Arya, Retired Deputy S.P. (who investigated the matter). 11. Thereafter, the statements of the accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. They stated that the victim met with the natural death on account of her ailment. After such death, father of deceased conceded, in writing, thereby desisting from the post-mortem. The papers of her medical treatment were referred to in the statement and submitted on record of the Trial Court. 12. We have perused the evidence carefully with the impugned judgment but at the same time, it is pertinent to note that after hearing the learned counsel for the State, this appeal against acquittal was admitted only as against ‘A1’, who was the husband of deceased. 13. As is apparent from the record that the lady lost her life within seven months of her marriage, while she was present in her matrimonial house, so, we have to examine whether her death was under abnormal circumstances, as it is envisaged under Sections 113-A and 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. These provisions postulate the presumption as to ‘abetment of suicide’ by a married woman within seven years from the date of her marriage, as also the presumption of ‘dowry death’, when it is shown that ‘soon before her death’, such woman was subjected to ‘cruelty’ or ‘harassment’ in connection with the demand for dowry. 14. Now, in the case in hand, the first information report, by itself, shows that there was no element of demand of dowry or any cruel treatment being extended to the deceased at the hands of her husband. 14. Now, in the case in hand, the first information report, by itself, shows that there was no element of demand of dowry or any cruel treatment being extended to the deceased at the hands of her husband. Rather, it discloses that in July, 2007 i.e. within two months of her marriage, Ms. Ujla fell ill; she was provided medical treatment in Base Hospital, Srinagar, which is fairly a big center for a hill town for such purposes and is also a best place for treatment considering where the deceased resided, which is a remote village situated in Tehsil Jakholi. 15. That apart, the victim was taken to Delhi for advance treatment, of course by the informant Suresh Chandra (brother of deceased), but her husband ‘A1’ also went along. The informant returned from that place after 8-10 days, but the victim remained under the medical treatment at Delhi for a long period and this fact can be gathered from the several papers available on the record. To call the doctors from Delhi as also from the hospital at Srinagar, so as to prove such papers, was not feasible and the same can well be accepted in the evidence just on the basis of admission itself made in the first information report as well as in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses. These documents narrate the ailment of deceased for quite a long duration and perhaps, she could not recuperate from her ailment. So, ultimately, she passed away, albeit in her matrimonial house. 16. The case of the prosecution witnesses has been projected as if ‘A1’ along with other family members had restrained the mother/brother of deceased besides other family members to see the dead body. But this allegation, put forth by prosecution, has been negated right from the first information report which depicts that as and when Smt. Sauni Devi (mother) and Mamraj (brother of deceased) reached in the in-laws house, they saw that Ms. Ujla had breath her last. In addition thereto, when, on the next day viz. 22.12.2007, PW1 along with his father and others went to the place of occurrence, inquest report was prepared which bore the signatures of A1, A2 and A3 and the father of deceased as well as of public representatives of their respective area Panchayats. Ujla had breath her last. In addition thereto, when, on the next day viz. 22.12.2007, PW1 along with his father and others went to the place of occurrence, inquest report was prepared which bore the signatures of A1, A2 and A3 and the father of deceased as well as of public representatives of their respective area Panchayats. This paper, although has not been proved, but at the same time, it is difficult to ignore the same since the writing of such document has been admitted even by PW1 Suresh Chand, who is none other but the informant. In para no.28, he admits that on 22.12.2008, when his father went to the in-laws house of deceased, members of the area Panchayat of both the villages were present and during their presence, this document was reduced in writing. It shows that the members of native village of deceased did not have any such apprehension of ‘abnormal death’ or some untoward incident towards the victim. So, both the parties agreed that no further allegation would be raised by either of them against each other. When this paper has been admitted by the brother of deceased in his deposition, then there is hardly any need to get it proved by calling the defence witness. 17. More so, PW7 Basantu Lal, who is the uncle of deceased, has deposed that Ms. Ujla was ailing for a longtime and her husband carried her to Delhi for medical treatment; the medicines were being provided to her continuously; even on the day of her death, she was under treatment and no other complaint was persisting. Hence, this witness has not ruled out the death of deceased on account of her illness. 18. A fortiori, when the remnants of soft tissues, pelvis and vertebral column of deceased were sent for the purpose of chemical examination, the report (Ex.Ka-21), so submitted by the Laboratory, suggests that no poisonous substance was detected in the same. So, there is no possibility of administering poison to her at the hands of members of in-laws nor there is a possibility of the deceased committing suicide by consuming poison. 19. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, we have not been persuaded to take a different view than what has been taken by learned Trial Judge. There is no scope of interference. The government appeal fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. 20. 19. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, we have not been persuaded to take a different view than what has been taken by learned Trial Judge. There is no scope of interference. The government appeal fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. 20. Let a copy of this judgment and order along with the LCR be sent back to the court below.