JUDGMENT : Hon'ble VYAS, J.—In this cr. appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan, the judgment dated 28.2.1998 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.43/1997 is under challenge whereby the learned trial court acquitted the respondents from the charges levelled against them under Section 302 and in the alternative under Section 304B and 498A IPC. 2. As per the brief facts of the case the complainant Bhanwar Lal PW—1 brother of the deceased submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) on 12.4.1997 before the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur to the effect that his sister Manta got married with Premraj S/o Banshi Lal Mali on 18.5.1994. In the marriage, a number of articles and ornaments were given as per the demand of in-laws but at the time of “Vidai”, the respondents demanded motorcycle or in the alternative Rs.25,000/- but it was not possible for the father of the Mamta @ Manta to fulfill the said demand immediately and therefore, assurance was given that motorcycle or money will be given latter on. As per the allegation of complainant, the behavior of the respondents remained normal for sometime but thereafter, they tortured Manta for bringing motorcycle or Rs.25,000/-. According to the complainant when the desire was not fulfilled then they murdered her on 8.4.1997. It was also submitted that out of three, two daughters of Anda Ram were married with the sons of Pema Ram and Mamta @ Manta was married with Prem Raj son of Bansi Lal 3. Upon receiving the aforesaid report (Ex.P/1) from the office of Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur, the SHO, Police Station, Mathaniya PW—11 Kalyan Singh registered the FIR no.59/1997 under Section 304B and 498A IPC and commenced the investigation. The investigating officer on completion of investigation filed challan against the respondents in the court of MJM, Osiyan under Section 302, 304B and 498A IPC. 4. The learned Magistrate committed the case for trial to the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur but transferred for the trial in the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jodhpur. 5. In the trial, charge under Section 302, 304B and 498A IPC was framed after providing an opportunity of hearing to the respondents, but they denied all the charges levelled against them and claimed for trial. 6. 5. In the trial, charge under Section 302, 304B and 498A IPC was framed after providing an opportunity of hearing to the respondents, but they denied all the charges levelled against them and claimed for trial. 6. To prove the prosecution case, 13 prosecution witnesses were produced and 25 documents were exhibited to prove the case against the respondents in the trial. 7. After recording prosecution evidence, the statements of respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied all the allegations and give statement that the deceased Manta fell down in the well and due to injuries caused she died, therefore, it was prayed that opportunity to lead evidence in defence may kindly be granted. 8. In defence, statements of 6 witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, the case was finally heard by the learned trial court and vide impugned judgment dated 28.2.1998 the learned trial court acquitted all the respondents by giving benefit of doubt from the charges levelled against them for offence under Section 302, 304B and 498A IPC. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that although trustworthy and reliable evidence was produced by the prosecution, the learned trial court gave erroneous finding that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that respondents Banshi Lal and Jena Ram made extra judicial confession before PW—1 Bhanwar Lal and PW—2 Ram Chandra but learned trial court disbelieved their testimony and gave erroneous finding that their statements cannot be accepted because allegations are not corroborated by any evidence, therefore, the judgment of acquitted passed by the learned trial court deserves to be quashed. Learned Public Prosecutor further argued that there is gross error in the finding given by the trial court for acquittal because the testimony of prosecution witnesses PW—1 Bhanwar Lal, PW —2 Ram Chandra, PW—3 Smt. Bira, PW—4 Smt. Radha, PW —5 Lala Ram, PW—6 Anda Ram, PW—7 Pukhraj and PW—8 Hameer Singh is disbelieved for the allegations against the respondents that their behavior was so bad with the deceased and she and she died within 7 years from the date of marriage, therefore, respondents are liable to be punished but the learned trial court disbelieved their testimony of these witnesses without cogent reasons. 10. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor further argued that for offence under Section 304B IPC presumption is to be drawn against the respondents because the sister of complainant PW—1 Bhanwar Lal died within 7 years from the date of marriage, therefore, it is a fit case in which the respondents were liable to be punished for committing offence under Section 304B and 498A IPC but due to erroneous finding given in the judgment, the respondents are acquitted in spite of the fact that there is material and trustworthy evidence is on record. 11. While inviting attention towards the finding that FIR has been lodged on the basis of legal advise it is submitted that such finding of the learned trial court is erroneous because there is no basis, foundation and evidence on record to support such finding of the learned trial court, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed. 12. Lastly it is argued that it is a case in which young girl died for not fulfilling demand of dowry by the father of the deceased, therefore, it was the duty of the court to assess the entire evidence in right perspective but it appears from the consideration that the learned trial court completely ignored the fact that there was demand of motorcycle and Rs.25,000/- at the time of marriage which is not fulfilled by the father of the deceased. In view of the above, the judgment impugned may kindly be quashed and the respondents may kindly be convicted for the offence under Sec. 302, 305B and 498A IPC. 13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that there is no error in the finding given by the learned trial court because a concocted story was framed by the complainant brother of the deceased PW —1 Bhanwar Lal upon which the written complaint was filed on 12.4.1997 before the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur. 13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that there is no error in the finding given by the learned trial court because a concocted story was framed by the complainant brother of the deceased PW —1 Bhanwar Lal upon which the written complaint was filed on 12.4.1997 before the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur. In fact, on the date of incident when deceased Manta fell down in the well, an information was given to the police by Banshi Lal S/o Balu Ram, father-in-law of Manta, which is Ex.D/9 in which it was informed that mental condition of my daughter-in-law Manta is not proper she is not having any issue and on 8.4.1997 at about 2.00 pm in the day my daughter-in-law Manta fell down in the well and there is no water in the well, therefore, number of injuries are sustained to her at that time, I, Kana Ram Mali, Dhalla Ram Mali, Aduram Suthar and Gopi Ram after making all efforts to get out body of the deceased outside the well and sent brother Jena Ram to inform the parents of deceased. Upon information, the SHO Police Station, Mathaniya entered the report at 8.30 pm on 8.4.1997 and said information was given to all the higher authorities of administration. All members of in-laws house came on spot and after post mortem Manta was cremated by the family members. The family members of the deceased were present at the time of cremation and upon information given to the administration, the proceedings under Section 176 Cr.P.C. was conducted by the Executive Magistrate Govind Singh Charan (PW—13) in which no complaint was made by the relatives of the deceased but all of sudden after 4 days of the incident, a written complaint (Ex.P/1) was filed by PW— 1 Bhanwar Lal brother of the deceased before Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur in which allegations for demand of dowry and articles were levelled. The police after investigation filed challan and to prove the prosecution case, list of 46 witnesses was given but only 13 witnesses were produced before the court in support of prosecution case. There is no eye witness of the incident nor any independent witness gave statement before the court to prove the allegation of cruelty and demand of dowry by the respondents. There is no eye witness of the incident nor any independent witness gave statement before the court to prove the allegation of cruelty and demand of dowry by the respondents. The most of the witnesses for the allegation of dowry are closed relatives of the deceased, therefore, it is obvious that prosecution story is seriously doubtful and concocted one based upon legal advice so as to implicate the respondents in false case. 14. The learned trial court after taking into consideration the important fact that soon after the death, information was given by the father-in-law of the deceased to the police and in pursuance of the said information (Ex.D/1) PW —13 Govind Singh Charan conducted complete investigation on the site, where no complaint was made by the relatives of the deceased and later on the complaint was filed with serious allegation of cruelty of demand of dowry. The learned trial court considered entire evidence and gave finding that it is a case in which prosecution story is seriously doubtful, therefore, the respondents are entitled for acquitted from the charges levelled against them because prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that there is no error in the finding given by the learned trial court for acquittal because deceased Manta fell down in the well and all efforts were made for her rescue by her in-laws, therefore, the finding given by the learned trial court for acquittal does not suffer from any illegality. Lastly it is argued that two other sisters of Mamta @ Manta are still living with the family members of the respondents, no such allegations of demand of dowry is are levelled by them and they are living peacefully, therefore, obviously it is a case in which prosecution has tried to implicate all the respondents in a false case, therefore, the instant appeal may kindly be dismissed. 16. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have minutely scanned the entire evidence, so also, considered the finding given by the learned trial court for acquittal of the respondents. 17. 16. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have minutely scanned the entire evidence, so also, considered the finding given by the learned trial court for acquittal of the respondents. 17. It emerges from the evidence that soon after the occurrence, the respondent Banshi Lal, father-in-law of the deceased Manta gave written information (Ex.D/1) at 8.30 pm on 8.4.1997 to the SHO Police Station Mathaniya in which following information was given : ^^fuosnu gS fd esjk yM+dk izsejkt mez 25 o"kZ dh 'kknh vkt ls djhcu rhu lky igys ?ksoM+k fuoklh v.knkjke th ifjgkj dh yM+dh ekurk ds lkFk gqbZ FkhA 'kknh ds ckn ls gh esjh iq= o/kq fnekxh lUrqyu Bhd ugha gksus dh otg ls ijs'kku jgrh FkhA esjh iq= o/kq ds dksbZ cky cPpk ugha gSaA vkt fnukad 3-4-97 dks djhc 2 cts fnu esa vpkud esjh iq=o/kq ekurk esjs ?kj ds ikl gh cus csjs esa fxj xbZA dqa, esa ikuh ugha FkkA eSaus o dkukjke ekyh] <Yykjke ekyh] vknwjke lwFkku] xksihjke us jLlh dh lgk;rk ls esjh iq=o/kq dks ckgj fudkyk] mldh gkyr xEHkhj ns[kdj eSaus esjs HkkbZ tSukjke iq= Jh ckywjke dks mlds ihgj ?ksoM+k Hkstk o v.knkjke th dks cqyk;k exj rc rd esjh iq= o/kq [kRe gks pqdh FkhA blfy, fjiksVZ djus esas nsjh gqbZ gSA fjiksVZ djrk gwW dk;Zokgh djkosaA** 18. On receiving such information, the SHO, Mathaniya informed Superintendent of Police and Addl. Superintendent of Police (Rural), Jodhpur and other officers with regard to the aforesaid incident. Admittedly, the then SDM, Phalodi PW-13 Govind Singh Charan went on spot where Dy. Superintendent of Police, Osiya and SHO, Mathaniya were present and in presence of all the family members of both the sides, the inquiry was conducted and after post mortem the body of the deceased was handed over to the husband Prem Raj vide Ex.P/23. The witness PW-13 Govind Singh Charan stated that during inquiry proceedings in front of police and other officials, the brother of the deceased and family members were present and Panchnama (Ex.P/16) was prepared in the presence of Ugam Singh, Madan Lal, Munni Lal, Khuma Ram and Ram Chandra. The witness PW-13 Govind Singh Charan stated that during inquiry proceedings in front of police and other officials, the brother of the deceased and family members were present and Panchnama (Ex.P/16) was prepared in the presence of Ugam Singh, Madan Lal, Munni Lal, Khuma Ram and Ram Chandra. In the cross-examination it is said that - ^^;g ckr lgh gS fd jkepUnz e`rdk ds HkkbZ o vU; fdUgha O;fä;ksa us eq>s ekSds dh dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku ;g dksbZ f'kdk;r ugha dh fd e`rdk dks mlds llqjky okys ngst ds fy, rax ijs'kku djrs gksosA** 19. We have also perused the statement of Investigating Officer Kalyan Singh (PW-11). The said witness in his cross-examination in the trial said that: ^^ihgj i{k okyksa esa e`rdk dk HkkbZ jkepUnz] izsejkt ekStwn Fks ckdh dkukjke] ykyth] vpykjke] Hkh[kkjke o es?kjkt ml le; ekSds ij ekStwn Fks ;k ugha eSa ugha dg ldrk D;ksafd eSa bu O;fä;ksa dks igpkurk ugha gwaA ;g lgh gS fd ekSds ij dh tk jgh dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku xkao ds dkQh O;fä ,df=r FksA ;g lgh gS fd esjs ekSds ij exZ dh tk jgh dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku e`rdk ds ihgj i{k ds HkkbZ jkepUnz o pkpk izsejkt us ngst ds lEcU/k esa esjs le{k fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ f'kdk;r ugha dhA yk'k lqiqnZ dh tkus rd jkepUnz o izsejkt ekSds ij ekStwn jgs FkA ;g ckr lgh gS fd fnukad 8-4-97 ls esjs ikl ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- tkus rd ihgj i{k ds ekurk ds fdlh fj'rsnkj us ngst dh ekax ds lEcU/k esa esjs le{k dksbZ f'kdk;r ugha dhA** 20. Meaning thereby, the investigating officer as well as the SDM Govind Singh Charan specifically stated before the court that during proceedings under Section 176 Cr.P.C. no complaint was made by any of the relatives of the deceased, therefore, after post mortem the body was handed over to the husband of deceased Premraj vide Ex.P/23. The aforesaid proceedings were undertaken on 9.4.1997. It is admitted fact of the case that no FIR or information was given by the complainant party to the police soon after the ocurrence, but later on, the brother of the deceased Bhanwar Lal submitted a written complaint (Ex.P/1) to Superintending of Police, Jodhpur after 4 days of the incident on 12.4.1997 upon that FIR no.59 was registered at Police Station Mathaniya on 13.4.1997 at 9.00 am in which the allegations with regard to demand of dowry are levelled. It is worthwhile to observe that in the documents including Panchnama (Ex.P/16) no suspicion or complaint was made by the complainant party against the respondents, but upon written FIR (Ex.P/1) submitted before the Superintendent of Police, the police field charge-sheet on 30.4.1997 under Section 498A and 304B IPC in which list of 46 witnesses was furnished to prove the prosecution case, but it is very strange that in the trial only 13 witnesses including witnesses of investigation were produced before the court in support of prosecution case. As per prosecution case, the marriage of Manta and her two other sisters Godavari with Meghraj and Bhagwati with Jhumar Lal both sons of Pema Ram were solemnized on 18.5.1994 on the same day Manta’s marriage was solemnized with Prem Raj. The consolidated marriage invitation card (Ex.P/26) is placed on record because Banshi Lal and Pema Ram are the real brothers. The aforesaid fact loudly speaks that all the three sisters namely Manta, Godawari and Bhagwati were married in the one family on 18.5.1994 and no allegation are levelled by other two sisters with regard to any demand of dowry. 21. Upon perusal of the entire evidence, an important fact also emerges for consideration that mental condition of deceased Manta was not good because she was having mental problem as she was not having any issue, in the information given by respondent Banshi Lal, father-in-law of deceased soon after the incident it was specifically stated to the police that mental balance of her daughter-in-law is not good, therefore, she always remained in tension and she is not having issue, therefore, she fell down in the well. In the information it was specifically stated that I, Kana Ram, Dhalla Ram Mali, Adu Ram Suthar and Gopi Ram made efforts to get out the body of the deceased from the well and those persons were impleaded as witnesses in the list of witnesses submitted by the prosecution alongwith the charge-sheet, but intentionally they were not produced in the trial before the court but in defence, the respondents produced those witnesses Ugam Singh, Ghwar Giri, Kana Ram, Khuma Ram and Munni Lal. All above witnesses categorically stated before the court on oath that deceased Manta herself fell down in the well and due to efforts, the body of the deceased was get out from the well, therefore, whole prosecution story is not trustworthy. 22. All above witnesses categorically stated before the court on oath that deceased Manta herself fell down in the well and due to efforts, the body of the deceased was get out from the well, therefore, whole prosecution story is not trustworthy. 22. In our opinion, the whole prosecution story became doubtful because on the one hand, the prosecution is including the names of 46 witnesses to prove the prosecution case, but not producing those witnesses who were present at the time of incident but respondents themselves produced those witnesses included in the list of witnesses by the prosecution in the charge-sheet and those witnesses categorically stated before the court that deceased Manta fell down in the well and her body was get out from the well. It is also important to mention here that SDM Govind Singh Charan (PW—13) and investigating officer Kalyan Singh (PW—11) both accepted in their statements that during inquiry under Section 176 Cr.P.C. no allegation was levelled by the family members, in spite of fact that complete inquiry proceedings was conducted in the presence of brother and other members of the family of parents of the deceased Manta. The learned trial court after considering the entire evidence held that none of the prosecution witnesses were present at the time of incident took place, so also, no grievance was raised by them when proceedings under Section 176 Cr.P.C. was commenced and completed, therefore, it is a case in which prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 23. In view of the above discussion, the finding arrived at by the learned trial court for acquittal does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity because the testimony of all the witnesses have been thoroughly considered by the learned trial court and held that story of pressure for demand of motorcycle and Rs.25,000/- is seriously doubtful. After thorough examination of the finding given by the learned trial court, in the light of the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that, the finding arrived at by the learned trial court that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt does not suffer from any illegality. The learned trial court categorically observed that soon after the occurrence in the presence of public servants when inquiry was conducted, no objection or grievance was raised by the complainant and family members of the deceased. The learned trial court categorically observed that soon after the occurrence in the presence of public servants when inquiry was conducted, no objection or grievance was raised by the complainant and family members of the deceased. More so, they participated in the cremation and other proceedings of inquiry and later on after 4 days field written FIR before the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur on fabricated grounds. Therefore, evidence of this case loudly speaks that prosecution story is seriously doubtful upon which no conviction can be based. 24. In view of the above, the instant cr. appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment dated 28.2.1998 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.43/1997 acquitting the respondents from the charges levelled against them under Section 302 and in alternative under Section 304B and 498A IPC is hereby dismissed.