JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 2. The present Criminal Appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 05.03.2016, passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, in Sessions Trial No. 1707 of 2012 (State vs. Vikas Sharma and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 307 of 2012, under Sections 498A, 304B in alternate 302/34 I.P.C. and Section 4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kavinagar, District Ghaziabad, whereby the accused persons have been acquitted for the charges levelled against them. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deceased was married to the accused opposite party no. 2 Vikas Sharma on 20.02.2011 and within two years of marriage, since demand of dowry could not be fulfilled, she was not only tortured but was also beaten and some poisonous substance was administered, due to which she died. Apart from that, charge under Section 304B and alternative charge under Section 302 /34 I.P.C. was also framed and it was the responsibility and burden of the accused opposite parties to show how she died. The learned lower court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused opposite parties from the charges levelled against them. The learned lower court without applying its judicial mind has passed the order of acquittal which is liable to be set aside. 4. Considered the submissions. From perusal of the record it is clear that the demand of dowry and torture could not be proved. No injury was found on the body of the deceased. Regarding the illness of the deceased, the operation was conducted and for the treatment etc, the payments were made by the accused opposite parties which was also admitted by PW-1, the informant. It appears that due to depression, the deceased consumed insecticide. 5. The prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt was rightly given to the accused opposite parties. The view taken by the learned lower court is one of the view possible in this case. The judgment is well reasoned and requires no interference. 6. Leave to appeal is refused. Accordingly, this application is rejected. Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J. Mrs. The view taken by the learned lower court is one of the view possible in this case. The judgment is well reasoned and requires no interference. 6. Leave to appeal is refused. Accordingly, this application is rejected. Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J. Mrs. Ranjana Pandya,J. Babu Ram Sharma Vs State of U.P. & 3 Others Criminal Appeal U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. - 1934 of 2016 For the Petitioner : Santosh Kumar Upadhyay,Manish Kumar Pandey For the Respondent : G.A. Since leave to appeal has been refused vide order of date passed on leave to appeal application, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. 21.4.2016