JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against judgment dated 16.09.2008 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tack Court, Shimla, in Sessions Trial No. 5-S/7 of 2008, vide which, learned trial Court has acquitted the accused for offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution was that an FIR Ext. PD was registered on 02.08.2007 by Shri Laiq Ram Chauhan at Police Station, Kotkhai i.e. FIR No. 50/07, to the effect that he was resident of village Darkoti and an agriculturist by profession. He had three daughters and a son. His eldest daughter Sureksha (deceased) was married in the month of November, 2002 with accused Yashwnat Singh as per Hindu rites. The deceased and the accused were having a son namely Siwang from the said wedding, who was approximately three years old. The deceased had visited the complainant’s house at village Darkoti in the month of March, 2007. She was residing in her matrimonial house in village Tahu. On 30.07.2007 at around 10.30 P.M. accused called the complainant on his mobile phone from Jubbal hospital and told him that Sureksha is seriously ill. Accused also conveyed to him that she had been referred to Indira Gandhi Medical College at Shimla for treatment. After some time, the complainant received a telephonic call from Richpal resident of village Tahu, owner of Car No. HP-09-1149 from Jubbal intimating the complainant that his daughter was unwell and had been referred to IGMC Shimla. The complainant gave a telephonic call to his cousin Mohinder Chauhan in Kharapathar. Mohinder Chauhan came to the complainant in his car and the complainant and his wife left for Jubbal in the car of Mohidner Chauhan. When they reached near village Sundli short of Jubbal, they spotted car No. HP-09-1149 coming from the opposite direction. They signaled the car to stop. Sureksha was lying unconscious on the rear seat of the car and the accused alongwith his younger brother Dicky and driver Richpal were also in the car. The complainant tried to talk with Sureksha but in vain as she was not in her senses. Sureksha was shifted by them in their vehicle alongwith the accused. When they reached near Chalnehar, they realized that the body of Sueksha had become cold. On this, they rushed Sureksha to Kotkhai hospital for treatment. The complainant tried to talk with Sureksha but in vain as she was not in her senses. Sureksha was shifted by them in their vehicle alongwith the accused. When they reached near Chalnehar, they realized that the body of Sueksha had become cold. On this, they rushed Sureksha to Kotkhai hospital for treatment. But the Doctor after examining her declared her as dead. After some time, 4-5 residents of village Tahu including Jatinder Mehta and Joginder reached Kotkhai hospital. Body of Sureksha was taken in the morning to village Tahu and she was cremated on 31.07.2007. Thereafter, complainant alongwith other persons returned in car bearing registration No. HP-03-1102 belonging to Mohinder Chauhan to village Darkoti. They found a discharge slip bearing registration No. 887/07 in the car. Vide this slip, Sureksha had been referred from Jubbal hospital to IGMC, Shimla and Medical Officer had mentioned in the discharge slip that the primary disease with which Sureksha was suffering was the consumption of organo phosphorous poison. On 29.07.2007 Sureksha informed the complainant on phone that she does not want to live in the house of her in-laws. According to the complainant, he believed that his daughter had consumed poison as the accused used to ill-treat her for dowry and she ended her life due to the act and conduct of the accused who used to maltreat her and demand dowry. It was further mentioned that as they were in shock on account of the sudden demise of Sureksha and were being visited by the relatives to mourn the death of Sureksha, they could not come earlier to the Police Station to lodge the complainant. 3. Stomach wash of the deceased was taken into possession by the police and sent for chemical analysis to Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga, Himachal Pradesh. Report of the laboratory was obtained. As per opinion of the Medical Officer, Sureksha had died after consuming organo phosphorous insecticide poison. 4. Investigation revealed that the deceased was married with the accused in November, 2002 and they were having a son. The deceased was kept nicely for about two years after the marriage by the accused but thereafter, he started harassing her for bringing insufficient dowry. The accused used to remark that instead of giving cash, Sureksha’s parents had given bulky items which are “Ghoro Key Mafik”. The deceased was kept nicely for about two years after the marriage by the accused but thereafter, he started harassing her for bringing insufficient dowry. The accused used to remark that instead of giving cash, Sureksha’s parents had given bulky items which are “Ghoro Key Mafik”. Accused had constructed a new house and used to force Sureksha to bring money from her parents and maltreated her for the same time and again. On this, the complainant called Ram Narain (Mason) and the accused to his house. The contract for construction of the house of the accused was given by the complainant to Ram Narain for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. Accused had not paid any money to Ram Narain. An amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid by the complainant to Ram Narain and Rs.20,000/- were paid by him to the accused. Rs.10,000/- were withdrawn by the complainant from his bank at Kotkhai, whereas Rs.20,000/- were borrowed by him from one Jai Ram and thereafter, he paid the said amount to the accused. Despite this, accused kept on maltreating Sureksha. He used to say that the complainant had not given him a golden chain. The accused also restrained Sureksha from visiting her ‘Mayika’. On 29.07.2007 at around 4.00 P.M. Sureksha had rang the complainant on his mobile No. 94180-40969 from mobile No. 94186-65333 informing him that the complainant should take her to his house in village Darkoti as she did not want to live in the house of her husband at village Tahu. Thereafter, on 30.07.2007 complainant left village Darkoti for Tahu. The complainant unsuccessfully tried to talk with Sureksha. When he rang her third time, Sureksha talked with him and requested him to return back to his house from Kharapathar instead of going to village Tahu. She had expressed her desire to talk to her mother. The complainant returned back to his house from Kharapathar and asked his wife to talk with Sureksha on phone. When his wife telephoned their daughter, the accused threatened them. Thereafter, on that very day i.e. on 30.07.2007, in the evening, Surekhsa consumed poison and the accused did not inform his in-laws about this fact. 5. After completion of the investigation, final report for the trial of the accused was presented by the police in the Court. When his wife telephoned their daughter, the accused threatened them. Thereafter, on that very day i.e. on 30.07.2007, in the evening, Surekhsa consumed poison and the accused did not inform his in-laws about this fact. 5. After completion of the investigation, final report for the trial of the accused was presented by the police in the Court. The accused was summoned and as a prima facie case was found existing against him, he was charged under Section 304-B I.P.C., to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. Learned trial Court on the basis of material produced on record by the prosecution as well as the defence concluded that not even a single person from the village of the accused has come forward to say that the deceased was ill-treated by the accused. It further held that the delay in reporting the matter by the complainant to the police was also fatal and it appeared that the story narrated by the complainant and his family members was concocted story and was an afterthought. According to the learned trial Court, the cumulative effect of the entire evidence was that the prosecution had failed to substantiate that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused for or in connection with the demand of dowry. It further held that the presumption of dowry death as envisaged under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act was not attracted in this case. Accordingly, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused by holding that it would not be safe to hold the accused guilty on the basis of dubious and effete evidence led by the State/prosecution. 7. Mr. Vikram Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court was not sustainable either on facts or on law. According to him, the judgment in fact was based on hypothetical reasonings returned by the learned trial Court based on surmises and conjectures and not on the basis of material produced on record by the prosecution. According to Mr. Thakur, the learned trial Court had failed to appreciate that the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of material produced on record by it. Mr. According to Mr. Thakur, the learned trial Court had failed to appreciate that the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of material produced on record by it. Mr. Thakur submitted that it stood established from the records that the deceased was harassed by the accused, who ill-treated her on account of demand of dowry and this very important aspect of the matter had been ignored by the learned trial Court. Material evidence on record had been disregarded in a perverse manner. According to him, learned trial Court disbelieved the statement of PW-2 Laiq Ram, father of the deceased and other material and principal witnesses i.e. PW-9 and PW-10 without any cogent basis whatsoever. Mr. Thakur argued that all the said witnesses, namely, Laiq Ram, Vijay Laxmi ad Missi Devi, had specifically stated that on 30.07.2007 at about 7.30 P.M. accused made a call on cell phone of PW-9 and asked why PW-9 had made a call to his house. When PW-9 told the accused that her mother wanted to talk with the deceased and she also wanted to talk with the deceased, the accused remarked that “Mein Teri Baat Teri Didi Sey Hamesha Ke Liye Karve Deta Hoon” and disconnected the phone. This fact was narrated by PW-9 to her father i.e. complainant as well mother. Thereafter, PW-2 complainant Laiq Ram tried to contact the accused on phone but was not successful. According to Mr. Thakur, these facts clearly suggested that the conduct of the accused was not above board but all these important aspects of the matter had been totally ignored by the learned trial Court while acquitting him. According to Mr. Thakur, the factum of the deceased of having consumed poison was also hidden from her parents by the accused. Information given to the parents of the deceased about her illness was also cryptic and vague. True facts were never disclosed to them, which also manifestly demonstrated the guilt of the accused. The learned trial Court had ignored this aspect of the matter also. Information given to the parents of the deceased about her illness was also cryptic and vague. True facts were never disclosed to them, which also manifestly demonstrated the guilt of the accused. The learned trial Court had ignored this aspect of the matter also. He further argued that in fact the conduct of the accused was very suspicious and the factum of the deceased having consumed poison and being in a serious condition and further her being referred to IGMC Shimla by the Doctor was also hidden by the accused from the parents of the deceased which facts were self-speaking about the guilt of the accused. He further submitted that the prosecution had sufficiently explained as to why there was delay in lodging of the FIR. However, the case of the prosecution in this regard stood brushed aside by the learned trial Court in a slipshod manner without appreciating that the case of the prosecution was neither concocted one nor an afterthought. Mr. Thakur further submitted that even otherwise the judgment passed by the learned trial Court was not sustainable because the conclusions arrived at were neither borne out from the record of the case nor the learned trial Court had appreciated the testimony of the prosecution witnesses in its correct perspective. The learned trial Court miserably failed to perceive the conduct of the accused including the factum of his alleging that his wife was having illicit relation with one Bikku which allegation of the accused remained an allegation only and could not be proved by him. He also argued that the learned trial Court erred in not appreciating that the villagers of the accused were united and none of them intended to depose against the accused but this according to him did not condone the guilt of the accused. Therefore, he prayed that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court be set aside and the accused be convicted for the offence with which he had been charged. 8. Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand argued that the learned trial Court had rightly acquitted the accused from the charges framed against him because according to him, the accused was not guilty of the said offences. Mr. Goverdhan submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. Mr. Goverdhan submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court had rightly come to the conclusion that the accused could not have been convicted on the basis of dubious and effete evidence led by the State. Mr. Goverdhan further argued that the factum of the case of the prosecution being a concocted story to frame and harass the accused is evident from the fact that there was delay in lodging of the FIR and the said delay had not been plausibly and satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. The so called explanation put-forth by the prosecution explaining the delay was totally flimsy and based on false and concocted facts. According to him, accused never harassed the deceased or ill-treated her on any account including for the alleged demand of dowry as was alleged by the prosecution. Mr. Goverdhan submitted that the prosecution had failed to produce even a single independent witness to corroborate its story of the deceased being harassed by the accused for want of dowry. He further submitted that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was neither cogent nor it was trustworthy or truthful and the same was highly doubtful keeping in view the fact that all of them were very closely related to the deceased. He further submitted that besides this there were grave inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of these witnesses which remained unexplained by the prosecution. Therefore, according to him as the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt against the accused, the learned trial Court had rightly acquitted the accused and the judgment so passed by the learned trial Court called for no interference. Thus, he prayed for the dismissal of the appeal being devoid of any merit. 9. Before proceeding any further, it is relevant to take note of the fact that here is a case which admittedly is of unnatural death and the death has taken place within 7 years of the marriage of the deceased. 10. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under:- “113-B. Presumption as to dowry death. 9. Before proceeding any further, it is relevant to take note of the fact that here is a case which admittedly is of unnatural death and the death has taken place within 7 years of the marriage of the deceased. 10. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under:- “113-B. Presumption as to dowry death. – When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman, and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. 11. Section 304-B of the IPC reads as under:- “304-B. Dowry death. – (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called 'dowry death', and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.” 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surinder Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2014) 4 SCC 129 , has held as under:- “17. Thus, the words 'soon before' appear in Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and also in Section 304B of the IPC. For the presumptions contemplated under these Sections to spring into action, it is necessary to show that the cruelty or harassment was caused soon before the death. The interpretation of the words 'soon before' is, therefore, important. The question is how soon before? This would obviously depend on facts and circumstances of each case. The cruelty or harassment differs from case to case. It relates to the mindset of people which varies from person to person. Cruelty can be mental or it can be physical. Mental cruelty is also of different shades. It can be verbal or emotional like insulting or ridiculing or humiliating a woman. It can be giving threats of injury to her or her near and dear ones. It can be depriving her of economic resources or essential amenities of life. It can be putting restraints on her movements. Mental cruelty is also of different shades. It can be verbal or emotional like insulting or ridiculing or humiliating a woman. It can be giving threats of injury to her or her near and dear ones. It can be depriving her of economic resources or essential amenities of life. It can be putting restraints on her movements. It can be not allowing her to talk to the outside world. The list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Physical cruelty could be actual beating or causing pain and harm to the person of a woman. Every such instance of cruelty and related harassment has a different impact on the mind of a woman. Some instances may be so grave as to have a lasting impact on a woman. Some instances which degrade her dignity may remain etched in her memory for a long time. Therefore, 'soon before' is a relative term. In matters of emotions we cannot have fixed formulae. The time-lag may differ from case to case. This must be kept in mind while examining each case of dowry death. 18. In this connection we may refer to judgment of this Court in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, where this Court considered the term “soon before.” The relevant observations are as under: (SCC pp. 222-23, para 15) “15. … ‘Soon before’ is a relative term which is required to be considered under specific circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time-limit. This expression is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. The term "soon before" is not synonymous with the term "immediately before" and is opposite of the expression "soon after" as used and understood in Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act. These words would imply that the interval should not be too long between the time of making the statement and the death. It contemplates the reasonable time which, as earlier noticed, has to be understood and determined under the peculiar circumstances of each case. In relation to dowry deaths, the circumstances showing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time. In relation to dowry deaths, the circumstances showing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time. If the cruelty or harassment or demand for dowry is shown to have persisted, it shall be deemed to be "soon before death" if any other intervening circumstance showing the non- existence of such treatment is not brought on record, before such alleged treatment and the date of death. It does not, however, mean that such time can be stretched to any period. Proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution. The demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and the date of death should not be too remote in time which, under the circumstances, be treated as having become stale enough." Thus, there must be a nexus between the demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment, based upon such demand and the date of death. The test of proximity will have to be applied. But, it is not a rigid test. It depends on facts and circumstances of each case and calls for a pragmatic and sensitive approach of the court within the confines of law.” 13. Thus, it is evident that for the purposes contemplated in Section 113-B of the Evidence Act 1872 and Section 304-B I.P.C. to spring into action, it is necessary to demonstrate that cruelty or harassment was caused soon before the death. Therefore, the interpretation of the words “soon before” assumes great significance and importance and these words have to be interpreted keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case. The question obviously will be how “soon before” her death such woman was subjected by the accused to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand for dowry. The cruelty or harassment will differ from case to case and it will obviously be relating to the mindset of people which will also vary from person to person. Besides cruelty being both mental and/or physical it can also be verbal or emotional. 14. The cruelty or harassment will differ from case to case and it will obviously be relating to the mindset of people which will also vary from person to person. Besides cruelty being both mental and/or physical it can also be verbal or emotional. 14. In the present case, the material witnesses are PW-2 Laiq Ram, father of the deceased, PW-8 Mohinder Chauhan, cousin of the complainant, PW-9 Vijay Laxmi, sister of the deceased and PW-10 Missi Devi, mother of the deceased. 15. PW-2 Laiq Ram, father of the deceased, deposed that Sureksha was married in November, 2002 and after her marriage, she was residing in the house of her in-laws in village Tahu. In March, 2007, she had come to his house. On 30.07.2007 at around 10.30 P.M., accused rang him from Jubbal hospital and told him that Sureksha was seriously ill and had been admitted in Jubbal hospital. He rang his cousin Mohinder, who thereafter came in his car to the house of PW-2 and PW-2 alongwith his wife proceeded towards Jubbal hospital in the car of Mohidner. He further deposed that when they reached Kharapathar one Cheu, a resident of village Tahu, telephoned him and conveyed that Sureksha had been referred to IGMC, Shimla. While they were on their way to Jubbal, a vehicle driven by Cheu came from the opposite side, which was stopped by them. Cheu, accused, Sureksha and Dicky, the younger brother of the accused were in that vehicle. Sureksha was lying on the rear seat of the vehicle and was unconscious. He tried to talk to her but in vain. He took out Sureksha from the vehicle of the accused and made her to lie in their car and also made the accused to sit in their car. Thereafter, they started proceeding towards Shimla. On the way, they checked the body of Sureksha which had become cold. So they immediately took her to Kotkhai hospital, where the Medical Officer after examining Sureksha declared her dead. In the morning, 4-5 persons came from Tahu and took the dead body of deceased to village Tahu, where she was cremated. After the cremation of Sureksha, PW-2 and his wife returned to their house in the vehicle of Mohinder. When Mohinder’s car was being cleaned, a discharge slip issued from Jubbal hospital was traced by them which was lying near to the rear seat of the car. After the cremation of Sureksha, PW-2 and his wife returned to their house in the vehicle of Mohinder. When Mohinder’s car was being cleaned, a discharge slip issued from Jubbal hospital was traced by them which was lying near to the rear seat of the car. This chit was read by him and it was mentioned therein that Sureksha had consummed the poison and she was referred to IGMC, Shimla. He further deposed that accused never told him that Sureksha had consumed poison. After going through the said chit Ext. PC, he suspected that his daughter had died due to poisoning. They returned to their village on 31.07.2007 i.e. in the evening after the cremation of Sureksha. On 02.08.2007 he got FIR Ext. PD registered. He further deposed that he did not report the matter to the police on 31.07.2007 and 01.08.2007 as lot of people were visiting their house and on 01.08.2007, as per the custom, he went to the house of the accused, because a day after the death, all the close relatives of the deceased assemble and fast. He further stated that after the marriage, accused kept Sureksha nicely for two years and thereafter, she used to remain tense. As and when Sureksha came to his house in village Darkoti, he used to enquire from her as to why she remained tense. She told that the accused demanded money. PW-2 further stated that he used to give money as and when Sureksha used to visit them. He further stated that fire had taken place in village Tahu in which 3-4 houses including the house of the accused were burnt. When accused and his family members were shifting their luggage to the house of someone else on account of the said fire, at that time, the accused remarked that Sureksha had brought the articles “Ghoro Jaise” and she was asked to bring the cash. Vijay Laxmi over heard this, who used to visit the house of Sureksha and who narrated this fact to him. He further stated that in the year 2005, Sureksha told him that they were to build a house and when he enquired from her as to how much money they had for the said purpose, Sureksha remarked that they had nothing and the only money available with them would be the one which he will give. He further stated that in the year 2005, Sureksha told him that they were to build a house and when he enquired from her as to how much money they had for the said purpose, Sureksha remarked that they had nothing and the only money available with them would be the one which he will give. After a few days, he received a phone call from Sureksha and she told him that her husband was demanding money for construction of the house. He called mason Ram Narain as well as the accused to his house. The contract for construction of the house was given to Ram Narain for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. He paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- to Ram Narain which he withdrew from the bank as the accused was not paying anything to Ram Narain. On demand from the accused, he borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/- from his Jija Jai Ram and gave it to the accused. He also stated that in the year 2004, when his younger daughter Bharti was married, he had given a gold chain to the husband of Bharti. Accused enquired from Sureksha as to why gold chain was not given to him by her parents at the time of their marriage. On this, Sureksha got converted her golden bangles in a chain and gave it to the accused. He further deposed that after March, 2007, Sureksha did not come to his house. She used to talk to them on telephone. On 29.07.2007, Sureksha had a telephonic talk with him at about 3-4 P.M. She remarked that she did not want to live in the house of the accused and that he should come to village Tahu and take her with him to his village Darkoti. Sureksha was not interested to live with the accused as he used to harass her for money. On 30.07.2007, he left for village Tahu and he got down from the bus at Kharapathar, from where a link road goes to village Tahu. From Kharapatahr, he rang Sureksha on the mobile phone of her ‘devrani’ Meera to talk to her. Telephone was received by Meera who said that since the accused was in the house, he should call later. He again rang after 15-20 minutes when Meera again gave the same reply. From Kharapatahr, he rang Sureksha on the mobile phone of her ‘devrani’ Meera to talk to her. Telephone was received by Meera who said that since the accused was in the house, he should call later. He again rang after 15-20 minutes when Meera again gave the same reply. When he again rang after about half an hour, Meera then handed over her phone to Sureksha so that he could talk to her and when he told Sureksha that he was coming in a vehicle and she should get ready, she remarked that he should go back to his village as she was busy sowing the pea crop. Sureksha also told him that she will come to village Darkoti of her own after 2-3 days. She also expressed her desire to talk with her mother. He rang his younger daughter and asked her to tell his wife to talk to Sureksha on the mobile phone of Meera. He returned back to his house from Kharapathar. On 30.07.2007, the accused made a phone call on the mobile phone of his daughter Vijay Laxmi and enquired as to why phone calls had been made at his house. Vijay Laxmi told the accused that her mother had a talk with Sureksha and she too wanted to talk to her sister. On this, the accused remarked “Mein Teri Baat Rooz Ke Liye Teri Didi Se Karva Deta Hoon” and thereafter, the accused disconnected the phone. PW-2 immediately rang Meera and told her that he wanted to talk to Sureksha. Meera told him that Surekshasha will talk to him after about 5 minutes. However, as no phone call was received by him from Sureksha, he again made a phone call to Meera but this time, her phone was switched off. Thereafter, he made phone calls on the mobile number of the accused but he disconnected the calls. He also stated that Sureksha was a girl having patience. He suspected that his daughter consumed poison as the accused used to ill-treat her. 16. In his cross-examination, he stated that Sureksha was shifted by him in their vehicle as Cheu was a slow driver and there was emergency. He denied the suggestion that when they shifted Sureksha to their vehicle, accused handed over the discharge slip Ext. PC to them. He also denied that at that time itself accused had told them that Sureksha had consumed poison. He denied the suggestion that when they shifted Sureksha to their vehicle, accused handed over the discharge slip Ext. PC to them. He also denied that at that time itself accused had told them that Sureksha had consumed poison. He further stated that from Sundli to Kotkhai he did not enquire from the accused as to what had happened to Sureksha as he was not interested to talk with him. He also stated that Cheu and Dicky came in their vehicle to Kotkhai. He further deposed that in Kotkhai he enquired from Cheu and Dicky about the cause of death of Sureksha, who stated that they knew nothing. When the Doctor declared Sureksha dead in Kotkhai, he did not enquire from him the cause of her death. On 31.07.2007, he was in village Tahu from morning till evening and on 01.08.2007 also, he was in village Tahu from morning till evening. He further deposed as under in his cross-examination:- “It is correct that in Tahu, the people were saying that Sureksha had consumed the poison. Again said, this fact was not narrated to me by anyone. It is incorrect to suggest that I did not get the FIR registered for two days as I was knowing the truth as to why my daughter consumed the poison.” He stated that his other daughter Vijay Laxmi was married to Vikram @ Bikku. He denied that Bikku had proposed to marry Sureksha and Bharti also. He also denied that Sureksha was having love affair with Bikku prior to her marriage with the accused. He also denied that the parents of Bikku did not agree for his marriage with Sureksha on the plea that his house was not good. He also stated that Sureksha had no illness. He also denied the suggestion that Sureksha never telephoned him nor he rang her as they were not on talking terms with Sureksha. He denied the suggestion that he was knowing that Sureksha had consumed poison and had concocted a false story later on simply to involve the accused. According to PW-2, he had borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/- from PW-6 Jai Ram Madaik and this amount was paid by him to the accused. He denied the suggestion that he was knowing that Sureksha had consumed poison and had concocted a false story later on simply to involve the accused. According to PW-2, he had borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/- from PW-6 Jai Ram Madaik and this amount was paid by him to the accused. However, PW-6 Jai Ram Madaik has deposed that complainant Laiq Ram had borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/- from him in the year 2005 and on being asked, he told him that the payment was being made to the Mason on account of the construction of house being made by his son-in-law. 17. PW-8 Mohinder Chauhan has stated that after coming from the cremation of Sureksha from village Tahu, he and Laiq Ram were cleaning the car, they found discharge slip Ext. PC lying in the car, in which it was mentioned that Sureksha had consumed poison. He stated that on their way to Kotkhai hospital and thereafter the accused did not disclose this fact to them. In his cross-examination, he deposed that none of them inquired from the accused when he was in their vehicle or in Kotkhai hospital about the cause of the death of Sureksha. The relevant portion of his deposition is quoted herein below:- “I do not know that when Sureksha was shifted to my car, the discharge slip Ext. PC was handed over by the accused to Laiq Ram. It is incorrect to suggest that when Sureksha was shifted to my car, the smell of poison was coming. I did not inquire from the doctor in Kotkhai Hospital regarding the cause of death of Sureksha.” 18. Vijay Laxmi, sister of the deceased, had entered the witness box as PW-9. She also stated that after marriage accused kept Sureksha nicely for two years but thereafter he started harassing her and demanding money. She also deposed that she used to visit the house of her sister in village Tahu and when the house of the accused was burnt in the fire he and his family members were shifting the luggage to the other house, the accused remarked “Yeh Ghore Jaisa Saman Kyon Laiye Hai.” According to PW-9, the said articles had been given to the deceased in dowry by her father. She stated that she narrated this incident to her father. She stated that she narrated this incident to her father. According to her, when her younger sister Bharti was married, her husband was given a gold chain by her parents. The accused asked his wife as to why the gold chain was not given to him at the time of the marriage. On this, deceased got converted her golden bangles into a chain and gave the same to the accused. As per her, on 29.07.2007, deceased rang her father on his mobile phone and conveyed that he should come to village Tahu and take her to village Darkoti as the accused ill-treats her. On 30.07.2007, their father left for Tahu and he rang her from Kharapathar. He gave her the number of the ‘devrani’ of the deceased and asked her to ensure that her mother talks to deceased on that mobile number. Thereafter, her mother rang deceased on the mobile phone of her ‘devrani’. According to her, on the same day, at 7.30 P.M., the accused rang her on her cell phone and enquired as to why phone call had been made at his house. She told him that her mother wanted to talk to the deceased and she also expressed her desire to talk to her sister. On this, the accused remarked “Mein Teri Baat Teri Didi Sey Hamesha Ke Liye Karva Deta Hoon” and thereafter disconnected the phone. Thereafter, she deposed that then she went to the kitchen and told her father about the words uttered by the accused. Her father made a call on the mobile phone of Meera, who in turn remarked that the Sureksha will talk to their father after about 15 minutes. Thereafter, they tried to contact the accused but in vain and at around 10.30 P.M., accused telephoned their father and informed that Sureksha was ill and had been taken to Jubbal hospital. In her cross-examination, she admitted that she was engaged to a boy of village Jachli, Tehsil Jubbal, which engagement broke down. She denied that before her marriage with the accused, deceased was having a love affair with Bikku. She denied the suggestion that on 29.07.2007 her father did not proceed to village Tahu to bring Sureksha and Sureksha did not make any telephone calls to them on 29.07.2007 or 30.07.2007. She denied that before her marriage with the accused, deceased was having a love affair with Bikku. She denied the suggestion that on 29.07.2007 her father did not proceed to village Tahu to bring Sureksha and Sureksha did not make any telephone calls to them on 29.07.2007 or 30.07.2007. She also denied the suggestion that on 30.07.2007 the accused did not make any phone call on her mobile number or uttered any remark as alleged by her. She deposed that before the police she had stated that her father tried to contact the accused on his phone upto 10.30 P.M. She was confronted with Ext. DA made to the police, wherein it was not so recorded. 19. PW-10 Missi Devi, mother of the deceased, also corroborated the story of the prosecution. She stated that on 30.07.2007 at about 10.30 P.M., accused telephoned them and told that Sureksha was unwell due to which she had been brought to hospital. She accompanied her husband in the car of Mohinder to Jubbal hospital and on the way, the vehicle in which the accused etc. were coming met them and they shifted the deceased and the accused to their car. But on the way they found that body of Sureksha had become cold, so they took her to Kotkhai hospital where the doctor declared her dead. She also deposed that the accused never disclosed that Sureksha had taken poison. She feigned ignorance that her husband had received a phone call from the accused informing him that Sureksha had consumed poison. She denied the suggestion that when they were at village Tahu, people were saying that Sureksha had consumed poison. 20. In the present case, the accused had stepped in the witness box as DW-1. He had stated that he was married with Sureksha on 21/22.11.2002. It was an arranged marriage and the couple was leading a very happy married life till the death of Sureksha. According to him, on 30.07.2007 in the evening, the deceased had a talk with her sister on phone and a quarrel took place between the deceased and her sister Vijay Laxmi. Thereafter, he talked with Vijay Laxmi and she indulged in loose talk. According to him, on 30.07.2007 in the evening, the deceased had a talk with her sister on phone and a quarrel took place between the deceased and her sister Vijay Laxmi. Thereafter, he talked with Vijay Laxmi and she indulged in loose talk. The deceased told him that Bikku had proposed her for marriage but her parents refused to do so and because of the said reason, the deceased was not having good relations with Bikku and she never wanted that Vijay Laxmi should be married with Bikku. He further deposed that the deceased was having love affair with Bikku @ Vikrant Chauhan prior to her marriage with him and this was disclosed to him by his wife. His father-in-law had come to his house in village Tahu a day prior to the engagement of Bikku and Vijay Laxmi and requested him and Sureksha to attend the engagement ceremony. The did not attend the function as he and his wife never wanted that Vijay Laxmi should be engaged or married to Bikku. He further deposed that after the engagement of Bikku with Vijay Laxmi, deceased used to remain tense and after talking to Vijay Laxmi on phone she was frustrated and on account of the said frustration she consumed poison within a minute after having the telephonic talk with Vijay Laxmi. He further deposed that as he was under shock he did not inform his in-laws at that time that Sureksha had consumed poison. His brother rang Cheu and asked him to bring his vehicle. Then he took his wife in the vehicle of Cheu to Jubbal hospital. From Jubbal hospital, he rang his father-in-law and informed him that Sureksha had consumed poison and from there Sureksha was referred to Shimla. When they reached near Sundli, the vehicle in which his father-in-law etc. were traveling came from the opposite side. Then Laiq Ram shifted him and his wife in their vehicle. He told his mother-in-law that Sureksha had consumed poison. In Kotkhai hospital, the doctor after examining Sureksha remarked in the presence of Laiq Ram and others that she had died after consuming poison. The smell of poison was coming from the mouth and clothes etc. of Sureksha. He further deposed that no payment was ever made to the Mason by his father-in-law and he never harassed his wife for dowry. The smell of poison was coming from the mouth and clothes etc. of Sureksha. He further deposed that no payment was ever made to the Mason by his father-in-law and he never harassed his wife for dowry. He had everything needed by an individual and Sureksha consumed the poison due to the engagement of Vijay Laxmi with Vikram. 21. DW-2 Richpal had deposed that he knew Sureksha and after the house of accused was burnt, he and his wife lived in their house for about 3 years. The relation between the accused and his wife were normal. When Sureksha consumed poison, she was taken to Jubbal in his vehicle. From Jubbal hospital, he telephoned Laiq Ram and informed him that his daughter had consumed poison, from where she was referred to Shimla. The smell of poison was coming from her mouth and clothes. When Sureksha died, he had enquired from the Doctor in Kotkhai hospital about the cause of her death and the Doctor remarked that she had consumed the poison. He also stated that Laiq Ram was related to him and his real sister Birma Devi was married to Balak Ram, the sala of Laiq Ram. He had got the marriage of Sureksha settled with Yashwant. He also deposed that neither Sureksha or her parents ever talked to him that the accused demanded dowry. 22. It is apparent from the story putforth by the prosecution that the complainant was informed by the accused on 30.07.2007 that Sureksha had been admitted in Jubbal Hospital and she was in serious condition. It is the own case of the complainant that after he was so informed, he alongwith his wife left for Jubbal hospital in the car of Mohinder Chauhan and on their way they met the vehicle being driven by DW-2 in which the accused was traveling with him younger brother and Sureksha. As per the version of the complainant he shifted his daughter from the said car to his own car and he also made the accused to sit with them in the said car. Further, his case was that while on way to Shimla when they checked Sureksha they found that her body had gone cold and accordingly, they took her to Kotkhai hospital and the Doctor declared her dead. Further, her body was taken to the village of the accused, where she was cremated. Further, his case was that while on way to Shimla when they checked Sureksha they found that her body had gone cold and accordingly, they took her to Kotkhai hospital and the Doctor declared her dead. Further, her body was taken to the village of the accused, where she was cremated. He thereafter returned back to his own village on 31.07.2007 and while cleaning the car, they came across discharge slip Ext. PC from which it was revealed that Sureksha had in fact consumed poison which fact was not disclosed to him by the accused. 23. Admittedly, the FIR had been lodged on 02.08.2008. As per the contents of the FIR, the complainant had attributed the consumption of poison by the deceased to the harassment meted out to her by the accused for want of dowry. In his deposition, he had maintained that when he was telephonically informed by the accused that his daughter had fallen ill and had been taken to Jubbal hospital, he did not enquire as to what was the cause of illness. He had further stated that even when the accused met him alongwith Sureksha, who had taken ill and she was shifted by him in his own car, even at that time, he did not enquire from the accused as to what had gone wrong with Sureksha. According to him, he did not enquire even from the Doctor when Sureksha was declared dead as to what was the cause of her death. He admitted in his cross-examination that when he had gone to village Tahu in the cremation of the deceased Sureksha, people were saying that Sureksha had consumed poison. 24. This means that even before discharge slip Ext. PC came in the notice of the complainant, he was aware of the fact that Sureksha had consumed poison. In our considered view, had it really been a fact that the deceased was being harassed by the accused for want of dowry and he was demanding dowry and money through her from his in-laws then it is not understood as to why the complainant did not lodge any complaint in this regard either with the police or with Panchayat etc. to this effect on 31.07.2007 itself. 25. Not only this, as per the version of the complainant, discharge slip came to their notice on 31.07.2007 and still the FIR was lodged on 02.08.2007. to this effect on 31.07.2007 itself. 25. Not only this, as per the version of the complainant, discharge slip came to their notice on 31.07.2007 and still the FIR was lodged on 02.08.2007. This delay in lodging of the FIR had not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. In our considered view, the delay in lodging the FIR keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case clouds the version of the prosecution with suspicion and the possibility of the facts being concocted and the FIR having been lodged as an afterthought against the accused cannot be ruled out. In other words, it raises a suspicion about the truthfulness of the case lodged by the complainant against the accused. 26. In the present case, another factor which is of great significance is the conduct of the parents of the deceased after they came to know that she had fallen ill and had been taken to Jubbal hospital. According to the parents of the deceased, she was being harassed by the accused for want of dowry after two years of her marriage with the accused. No material has been brought on record by the prosecution to demonstrate that the factum of alleged harassment of the deceased by the accused for want of dowry was ever reported before her by her parents either to the police or to any authority or before Panchayat etc. No attempt was made by them to enquire as to what had caused such grave illness to Sureksha so suddenly and what was the cause of her death. In fact, they attended the last rites of the deceased and that too, in the matrimonial village of the deceased. According to PW-2, the cremation of the deceased took place on 31.07.2007 and thereafter, they again went to the village of accused on 01.08.2007 to mourn the death of the deceased. In our considered view, this conduct of the parents of the deceased cannot be termed to be natural had it really been a case of the deceased of having been harassed by the accused which forced her to consume poison. 27. On the other hand, keeping in view this peculiar conduct of the parents of the deceased, the version put-forth by the accused that the deceased consumed poison as a result of altercation which took place on telephone between her and Vijay Laxmi cannot be ruled out. 27. On the other hand, keeping in view this peculiar conduct of the parents of the deceased, the version put-forth by the accused that the deceased consumed poison as a result of altercation which took place on telephone between her and Vijay Laxmi cannot be ruled out. No independent witness has deposed that deceased was harassed by the accused or that the accused was demanding dowry etc. from her. 28. A cumulative effect of all what we have discussed above is this that it cannot be said with certainty that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that deceased consumed poison as a result of her being harassed and ill-treated by the accused for want of dowry. 29. Further, keeping in view the fact that PW-2, PW-9 and PW-10 are all interested witnesses being closely related to the deceased, a close scrutiny of their statements reveals that neither do these statements inspire confidence nor they seem to be trustworthy. Thus, they cannot be made the basis for the conviction of the accused. No cogent explanation has come forth as to why there was delay in lodging of the FIR. On the other hand, DW-2 has deposed that the relationship between the deceased and the accused was normal and the marriage between them had been settled by him. He further mentioned that neither the parents of the deceased nor the deceased ever complained to him that the deceased was being harassed by the accused for want of dowry. The prosecution has not been able to impinge the truthfulness of the statement of the said witness. 30. In this background, a mere suspicion that the alleged act of the accused might have resulted in the deceased taking extreme step of committing suicide cannot be made the basis to convict him. 31. The prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of the offence alleged against him. Besides perusing the records of the case, we have also gone through the judgment passed by the learned trial Court in detail and the learned trial Court has also dealt with all these aspects of the matter. It has after due deliberation based on the appreciation of evidence on record come to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It has after due deliberation based on the appreciation of evidence on record come to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. We are in agreement with the said conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court. According to us also, the prosecution has failed to drive home the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and as such, in our view also, he is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 32. Therefore, we uphold the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and dismiss the appeal being without merit. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.