JUDGMENT In this cr. appeal filed under Section 372(2) Cr.P.C. the appellant-complainant is challenging the judgment dated 6.5.2016 passed by the Special Judge, Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.103/2013 (311/2014) by which the learned trial court acquitted the respondents accused persons from the charge leveled against them under Section 302/34 IPC and convicted for offence under Sections 304B and 498A IPC. The challenge is only to the extent of not punishing the respondents for offence under Section 302/34 IPC. 2. As per the brief facts of the case a written complaint was submitted at Police Station Muklawa, District Sri Ganganagar by complainant Satveer Singh in which it was stated that marriage of his sister was solemnized with respondent no.2 before 7-8 months and sufficient dowry articles was given in the marriage, but her in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry articles and they were continuously harassing her for less dowry and demanding more dowry. 3. The complainant always asked them not to act in this manner, but they did not stop harassing his sister Sandeep Kaur. As per allegation of complainant, the husband and in-laws were repeatedly using filthy words and upon demand they gave Rs. 4 lacs to them. The complainant stated in his complaint that on 1.9.2013 at about 4.00 pm he received a phone call from Sandeep Kuar in which it was informed by her that her husband Malvindra Singh, father-in-law Avtar Singh, mother-in-law Rajveer Kaur and brother-in-law Harbhajan Singh forcibly gave spray and due to that she died. Upon receiving such information, the complainant received further information that the body of Sandeep Kaur brought to the hospital of Dr. Gurmeet Singh at Raisinghnagar where upon inquiry doctor informed that she was died, therefore, there was no question to provide any treatment to her. Further, it is informed by the doctor that I have sent the body of Sandeep Kaur to the Government Hospital for post mortem. Upon aforesaid written report FIR no.126/2013 was registered under Section 498A, 304B and 406 IPC and after investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against respondent Malvindra Singh only but upon filing an application under Section 193 Cr.P.C. father-in-law Avtar Singh, mother-in-law Avtar Singh and brother-in-law Harbhazan Singh were added as accused and after hearing arguments upon charge, the charge under Section 498A, 304B and in the alternative 302/34 IPC was framed against the respondents. 4. 4. In the trial, the statements of 8 prosecution witnesses was recorded and 23 documents were exhibited. Thereafter, the statements of all accused respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and upon granting an opportunity to lead evidence in defence, the statement of three witnesses were recorded in the defence before the court. 5. The learned trial court after recording evidence finally heard arguments and convicted the accused appellants for offence under Section 304B and 498A IPC and passed sentence against them, but acquitted the respondents from the charge under Section 302/34 IPC. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant vehemently argued that there is ample evidence on record for commission of offence under Section 302/34 IPC. The learned trial court without considering the said evidence acquitted the respondents from the charge under Section 302/34 IPC and convicted only for offence under Section 304B and 498A. While inviting attention towards the statement of complainant PW-2 Satveer Singh it is stated that this witness has categorically stated in his first statement that on 1.9.2013 at about 4.00 pm he received phone call of Sandeep Kaur in which she informed that her husband and all other family members forcibly gave spry (poison) and asked to save her, at that time, somebody snatched the phone from her, therefore, so many phone calls was given by her but no reply came. 7. According to the learned counsel for the appellant as per the statements of PW-2 Satveer Singh and PW-3 Suchha Singh it is the case for offence under Section 302 IPC, but the learned trial court committed grave error in not convicting the respondents for offence under Section 302/34 IPC, therefore, the finding of the learned trial court for acquittal of respondents from charge under Section 302/34 IPC may kindly be quashed and they may be convicted for the aforesaid offence. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant we have perused the entire evidence. Admittedly, prosecution case is based upon the statement of 8 witnesses out of which PW-1 Rohit Sharma is the doctor who conducted post mortem of the deceased. The witness PW-2 Satveer Singh is author of FIR, who made allegations in the complaint that on telephonic call deceased informed him about the alleged incident. Admittedly, prosecution case is based upon the statement of 8 witnesses out of which PW-1 Rohit Sharma is the doctor who conducted post mortem of the deceased. The witness PW-2 Satveer Singh is author of FIR, who made allegations in the complaint that on telephonic call deceased informed him about the alleged incident. Similarly, PW-3 Suchha Singh is father of deceased made allegation for demand of dowry and also state that at 4’O Clock my son Satveer Singh (PW-2) received call from his daughter Sandeep Kaur. No other witness is produced by the prosecution to prove the allegation for offence under Section 302/34 IPC. It is also worthwhile to observe that there is no evidence of call details, so also, no injury was found upon the body of the deceased as per the postmortem report (Ex.P/1) dated 2.9.2013, therefore, we are of the opinion that the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the respondents from the charge leveled against them because prosecution has failed to prove the case for offence under Section 302/34 IPC 9. Therefore, this appeal filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed. The respondents were convicted for offence under Section 304B and 498A IPC vide judgment dated 6.5.2016 against that appeal is pending, therefore, it is made it clear that any observations made in this appeal shall not effect the merit of the appeal filed by the accused respondents against their conviction for offence under Section 304B and 498A IPC.