JUDGMENT : Dinesh Chandra Somani, J. This criminal leave to appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan under sub-Section (1) and (3) of Section 378 of Cr.P.C. against judgment dated 03/05/2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter "the trial court") in Sessions Case No. 101/13 whereby the accused No. 1 Vikram, No. 2 Arjun Talwar and No. 3 Smt. Madhu (respondents in this appeal) have been acquitted from charges levelled against them under Sections 498A, 304B/302 of IPC. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 02/02/2013 at about 11:30 AM Smt. Hemlata (PW-1), mother of deceased Megha along with her son Tarun Puri (PW-2) submitted a written report to SHO, Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur at mortuary of SMS Hospital, Jaipur to the effect that marriage of her daughter Megha was solemnized with Vikram Talwar on 27/08/2008 in Rohtak. Her daughter was maltreated during her pregnancy. On the advice of doctor, she took her to Rohtak in critical condition. Thereafter accused persons apologies and brought her daughter Megha back to Jaipur, promising not to maltreat her in future. Even then they continued beating her and demand, which she used to fulfil but their greed persisted. They again demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- cash from her when she came to Jaipur last week, which she could not fulfil, therefore, she is confident that bridegroom and his father, mother burnt her daughter to death. These persons did not inform her about burning. They didn't reply to her many phone calls which created doubt, thus they came to Jaipur, where they came to know that her daughter is burnt 80% and then she informed the police control room through phone. 3. On the above, report a FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered at Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur City being FIR No. 64/2013 for commission of offence under Sections 498A, 304B of IPC. 4. 3. On the above, report a FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered at Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur City being FIR No. 64/2013 for commission of offence under Sections 498A, 304B of IPC. 4. During the course of investigation, police prepared Panchayatnama, obtained post mortem report and handed over the dead body of deceased to her mother and brother for last rituals, statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., site plan was prepared, accused persons were arrested, Bed Head Ticket of deceased Megha was obtained from SMS Hospital, obtained photographs of spot taken by Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) team and after usual investigation the charge-sheet was filed against the accused-respondents for commission of offence under Sections 498A, 304B of IPC in the Court of ACJM No. 7, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. The offences being triable by the Court of Session, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, who in turn transferred it to the Court of Special Judge, Women Atrocities and Dowry Act Cases, Jaipur City, Jaipur, which was later on renamed as Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur where it was registered as Sessions Case No. 101/2013. 5. Learned trial Court framed charges against the accused-respondents for offences under Sections 498A, 304B/302 of IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused-respondents who pleaded not guilty and sought to be tried. 6. During trial, prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-35 in documentary evidence to prove the charges levelled against the accused-respondents. Thereafter, learned trial Court put oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution to the accused-respondents under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In reply to the prosecution evidence, the accused-respondents stated that evidence adduced against them is incorrect and pleaded that they have been falsely implicated. They also stated that Hemlata and Tarun pressurised Megha to give her ornaments, thus she was in mental stress and because of that she committed suicide. They also pleaded that they never demanded money. In defence, the accused-respondents examined DW-1 Vinod Kumar, DW-2 Sanjay Kumar and exhibited five documents during prosecution evidence. 7. After completion of trial, the learned trial court held that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons harassed the deceased in connection with demand of dowry prior to her death. They also pleaded that they never demanded money. In defence, the accused-respondents examined DW-1 Vinod Kumar, DW-2 Sanjay Kumar and exhibited five documents during prosecution evidence. 7. After completion of trial, the learned trial court held that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons harassed the deceased in connection with demand of dowry prior to her death. The learned trial court thus, acquitted all the accused-respondents of all the charges under Sections 498A, 304B/302 of IPC. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, State of Rajasthan has filed this application for leave to appeal before this Court against the judgment of the learned trial court dated 03/05/2016. 9. We gave anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the entire evidence and impugned judgment for the purpose of considering the prayer for grant of leave. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently contended that the learned trial Court committed a grave error in acquitting the respondents from the charges levelled against them under Sections 498A and 304B/302 of IPC because marriage of deceased Megha and respondent No. 1 Vikram Talwar was solemnized on 27/08/2009 and she died on 02/02/2013 in misterious circumstances in seven years of marriage therefore the learned trial court should have raised the statutory presumption in law under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. Learned Public Prosecutor also contended that almost all the five witnesses from the family of complainant have consistently stated about the harassment meted out to the deceased in connection with the demand of dowry. 11. Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. deals with the power of the High Court to grant leave in case of acquittal. Sub-Section (3) of Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure puts a restriction on entertaining of appeals by imposing a condition that the leave of the High Court should be first obtained before any appeal is entertained. 12. In the instant case, there is no dispute that deceased Megha died within seven years of marriage in unnatural circumstances. From the autopsy report Ex.P-19 read with the statement of PW-6 Dr. Rajesh Kumar, it is clear that the deceased died due to shock brought about as a result of dry heat flames. Viscera was preserved, sealed and handed over to police. From the autopsy report Ex.P-19 read with the statement of PW-6 Dr. Rajesh Kumar, it is clear that the deceased died due to shock brought about as a result of dry heat flames. Viscera was preserved, sealed and handed over to police. According to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report Ex.P-35, viscera gave negative tests for metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquillizers and insecticides. In cross-examination PW-6 Dr. Rajesh has stated that no internal or external injuries were found on the body of deceased except burn marks. 13. The learned trial Court found that the prosecution could not establish that soon before the death of Megha, there was any demand by the accused persons for dowry or that she was subjected to any cruelty or harassment for dowry. Learned trial court has focused on the material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses with regard to the demand of dowry. PW-1 Hemlata who is mother of deceased Megha is star witness of the prosecution, on whose written report the FIR was registered. According to PW-1 Hemlata, accused persons started harassing her daughter Megha for demand of dowry after three months of marriage. The witness took her daughter Megha to Rohtak for delivery, where she gave a birth to male child. Thereafter, accused persons came to Rohtak and assured not to harass Megha but she did not send Megha with them. After that Vikram (respondent-husband) came on 27/08/2010 and brought her to Jaipur. After 4-5 days of that, Vikram demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- from her. The witness stated in cross-examination that there was no demand at the time of engagement and marriage ceremony and they never filed any case against the accused persons for demand of dowry, beating or harassment, prior to this present case. She can't say as to when and what demand was made by the accused persons. The witness was confronted with her earlier statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., exhibited as Ex.D-1. Learned trial court found that there are material contradictions in the statement of PW-1 Hemlata recorded in the Court and her previous statement Ex.D-1 on the material points. The witness stated in Court that Vikram (respondent) demanded Rs. The witness was confronted with her earlier statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., exhibited as Ex.D-1. Learned trial court found that there are material contradictions in the statement of PW-1 Hemlata recorded in the Court and her previous statement Ex.D-1 on the material points. The witness stated in Court that Vikram (respondent) demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- from her after 4-5 days of return with Megha from Rohtak on 27/08/2010, whereas in Ex.D-1 the witness stated that the demand was made when she came to Jaipur in the earlier week of incident dated 01/02/2013. The witness did not state in Court that she ever fulfilled demand, whereas in Ex.D-1 she stated that she used to fulfil the demands made by accused persons. The witness has not stated in Court about beating, whereas in Ex.D-1 she stated that Vikram used to beat Megha. From the statement of this witness it appears that she has levelled general allegations of demand of dowry and she took Megha to Rohtak when she was pregnant looking to her health conditions and not due to demand of dowry. Deceased Megha was living with accused persons in her matrimonial home continuously for last five months prior to the incident and she was in continuous contact with PW-1 Hemlata. PW-1 Hemlata also stated that the accused persons burnt her daughter to death and did not inform her, whereas she stated in cross-examination that father-in-law of Megha (respondent No. 2) told her about the incident. According to PW-2 Tarun (brother of deceased), on 01/02/2013 Megha told him on telephone that she is being harassed and they will kill her and after some time Megha sent a massage to him. Then he and his mother along with four persons reached to SMS Hospital where Megha was admitted in burn ward. But the prosecution neither produced call details nor the message received by PW-2 from deceased Megha. PW-1 Hemlata did not state about the phone call and message made/sent by Megha, as stated by PW-2 Tarun. 14. Learned trial Court also found that PW-1 Hemlata and PW-2 Tarun were in Jaipur on 25/01/2013 and they stayed with accused persons. On that day they went to Amer Temple with Megha (deceased) and Vikram (accused-respondent), where Tarun lost his shoes. Identification of thief was made from CCTV footage in which deceased Megha was looking to be very happy with Vikram. On that day they went to Amer Temple with Megha (deceased) and Vikram (accused-respondent), where Tarun lost his shoes. Identification of thief was made from CCTV footage in which deceased Megha was looking to be very happy with Vikram. PW-1 Hemlata and PW-2 Tarun returned on 26/01/2013 to Rohtak. Learned trial Court was of the view that if the deceased would have been in stress of demand of dowry, they (PW-1 & PW-2) did not go to roam around with accused Vikram and would not have returned to Rohtak, which proves that the relations among accused persons and deceased were smooth and coordial. After critical analysis of statement of PW-1 Hemlata, learned trial Court found that the statements of PW-1 Hemlata does not inspire confidence, thus cannot be believed. 15. PW-3 Rajesh Kumar is uncle of deceased Megha who is living in Jaipur, has stated in cross-examination that he never went to the matrimonial home of Megha in last six months prior to the incident. He went to hospital when he got information about death of Megha at about 1:00 AM in night. He did not say that the matter is mysterious and also not told to call police. He does not know as to when the demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- was made. The learned trial Court found that the witness was living in Jaipur for last three years prior to the incident but he never visited the deceased Megha and remained in contact with her, rather it appears that PW-1 used to keep away this witness from the internal matters of family. This witness did not attend the engagement and marriage ceremonies of Megha, thus the evidence of PW-3 Rajesh cannot be relied upon. 16. PW-5 Sudha is aunt of deceased Megha and wife of PW-3 Rajesh Kumar. According to the statement of this witness given in cross-examination, she never went to the matrimonial home of deceased Megha, though she was living in Jaipur for last three years. No one except Hemlata told her about the demand of Rs. 2,00,000/-. She reached directly to the mortuary after death of Megha, whereas in her earlier statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and exhibited as Ex.D-3, the witness stated that she went in the burn ward of SMS Hospital in night, where Megha was found unconscious and her whole body was burnt. 2,00,000/-. She reached directly to the mortuary after death of Megha, whereas in her earlier statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and exhibited as Ex.D-3, the witness stated that she went in the burn ward of SMS Hospital in night, where Megha was found unconscious and her whole body was burnt. Learned trial Court found that there are material contradictions in the statements of PW-1 Hemlata and PW-5 Sudha on material points, thus the evidence of PW-5 Sudha cannot be relied upon. 17. PW-4 Suman is aunt (bua) of deceased Megha who stated in cross-examination that Megha told her that her-in-laws took her ornaments on the next day of the marriage and demand of Rs. 4,00,000/- was made before 15 days of the incident. Learned trial Court found that no other witness stated about demand of Rs. 4,00,000/- and taking of ornaments on next day of marriage. 18. Accused respondents examined DW-1 Vinod and DW-2 Sanjay in their defence. According to DW-1 Vinod, he used to go to the house of accused persons, Megha used to come to his shop for purchasing, Megha and her family members never said that accused persons demand dowry or harass her, Megha was happy with accused persons. Similar statements was given by DW-2 Sanjay. There is no reason to disbelieve on the statements of defence witnesses. 19. From the perusal of the evidence brought on record it appears that it was husband and mother-in-law of the deceased Megha who took her to the hospital and they did not made any attempt to run away from the place of occurrence. The complainant PW-1 Hemlata and her son PW-2 Tarun along with four persons reached to Jaipur in mid-night, PW-3 Rajesh Kumar also reached to hospital in mid-night and they could have lodged the report immediately to the police but did not choose to do so. There is no convincing evidence to indicate that accused-respondents subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment before death for not meeting their demand of dowry, therefore, essential ingredients of Section 304B of IPC are not made out. Statement of mother of deceased PW-1 Hemlata regarding demand of dowry is general and not specific. No specific incidence has been indicated suggesting cruelty or harassment made by accused respondents. Statement of mother of deceased PW-1 Hemlata regarding demand of dowry is general and not specific. No specific incidence has been indicated suggesting cruelty or harassment made by accused respondents. Though allegation of demand of dowry was made but there is no convincing evidence that the deceased was harassed soon before her death for or in connection with the demand of dowry. 20. Learned trial court relying on the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in (i) 2011 (Suppl.) Cr. L. R. (SC) 49 Maniklal Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (ii) 2015 (3) SCC 724 Sher Singh @ Partapa v. State of Haryana, (iii) 2015 (Suppl.) Cr.L.R. (SC) 308 Major Singh v. State of Punjab, (iv) 2013 (2) Criminal Court Cases 351 (SC) Bakshish Ram & Anr. v. State of Punjab, (v) 2014 (3) Criminal Court Cases 773 (SC) Manoharlal v. State of Haryana and on the judgments of this Court in (vi) 2012 (2) RLW 1674 (Raj.) State of Rajasthan v. Parma Ram and (vii) 2011 (2) RCJ (Raj.) 1001 Kailash Chand & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and after analysing the statements of PW-3, PW-4 & PW-5 with the statements of PW-1 Hemlata and PW-2 Tarun, was of the view that there are material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses on important points and the prosecution has failed to show even by preponderance of probabilities that deceased Megha was treated with cruelty or harassed for the demand of dowry by the accused persons soon before her death. 21. The scope of hearing a criminal leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal is limited. The initial presumption of innocence of accused persons is further strengthened by judgment of acquittal. We are of the considered view that the application for leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal ought not to be granted until an apparent error in the judgment of trial Court is pointed out. 22. In view of the above, the prosecution having failed to make out a case under Sections 498A, 304B/302 of IPC against the accused persons, therefore the application for leave to appeal by the State under sub-section (1) and (3) of Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code deserves to dismissed. Consequently we find no force in the criminal leave to appeal and the same is dismissed. Leave to appeal dismissed.