JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. The State has come in appeal against Judgment dated 9.9.2010 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala in S.T. No. 31/2010, whereby respondents-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused' for convenience sake), who were charged with and tried for offence under Section 498-A/34 and 306/34 IPC, have been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that deceased Parveeen alias Lado was married to accused Jagbir, whereas Sarain Singh and Raj Kumari are the parents-in-law of the deceased. Accused after 5-6 months of marriage started maltreating the deceased by giving her taunting and beatings. Deceased had told her mother that accused persons had been asking her to construct two rooms at their house. The parents of deceased being poor, were unable to satisfy the aforesaid demand. Consequently, accused persons had been taunting and beating the deceased. Once, accused Jagbir and deceased had come to the parental house of deceased and the deceased had told her mother that accused had been asking her to construct two rooms, otherwise she could leave after taking her articles. Mother of deceased made the accused Jagbir understand that being poor persons they could not construct room in the near future. After 3-4 days, accused Jagbir went back, whereas deceased Parveen stayed with her mother. Thereafter, the deceased told her mother that her husband was asking not to come to his house if she could not construct the room. On 15.8.2009, at about 8.45 PM, Parveen telephoned her mother Savitri Devi that accused person had abused and beaten her on account of aforesaid demand and due to this reason, she had consumed poisonous substance. Thereafter parents of Parveen went to the village of accused and they came to know that Parveen had been shifted to CHC, Gangath for medical treatment. They also reached CHC Gangath at 10.30 PM and found their daughter dead. Police was informed. Statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 154 CrPC. Bottle of poison, alongwith viscera was taken to Police Station, Nurpur. Investigation was completed. Challan was put in the Court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Accused were also examined under Section 313 CrPC. They pleaded innocence. Trial Court acquitted all the accused as noticed above. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. Investigation was completed. Challan was put in the Court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Accused were also examined under Section 313 CrPC. They pleaded innocence. Trial Court acquitted all the accused as noticed above. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused persons. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also gone through the record carefully. 6. PW-1 Savitri Devi testified that four years ago, Parveen Kumari was married to accused Jagbir Singh at village Chaloh. Relations of the husband-wife were good for 5-6 months and thereafter, Jagibir and his parents started harassing their daughter. They were asking her daughter that two rooms be got constructed at Chaloh. This fact was told by Parveen to them whenever she used to come to their house. She told her daughter that they were unable to fulfill the demand due to their poverty. On the occasion of Rakhi, in the year 2009, her daughter and her husband came to their house. Accused remained in the house for two days. At that time also her daughter complained against the accused for not meeting the demand of constructing the house. They also threatened her daughter to oust her if the demand of construction of the house was not fulfilled. She tried to make Jagbir Singh understand the problem that she was unable to construct the house due to poverty. About two months back Parveen visited her house with accused. Jagbir, after leaving Parveen in her house, went back. On Rakhi occasion, both of them came again to her house. Accused stayed for two days and on third day he went alone. On return, accused Jagbir telephoned Parveen Kumari to come back otherwise she should take away the Stridhan articles. Her daughter went to her matrimonial house. On 15.8.2009, at about 8.45 PM, her daughter rang up her and told that the accused were beating her. She also told that she had consumed poisonous substance due to harassment. She alongwith her husband and villagers went to Chaloh and came to know that Parveen was taken to Gangath. When they reached Gangath, Parveen Kumari had expired. She reported the matter to the police. Her statement Ext. She also told that she had consumed poisonous substance due to harassment. She alongwith her husband and villagers went to Chaloh and came to know that Parveen was taken to Gangath. When they reached Gangath, Parveen Kumari had expired. She reported the matter to the police. Her statement Ext. PW-1/A was recorded by the police. In her cross-examination, she admitted that on the occasion of festivals and some other important engagements, accused and her daughter use to come to their house. They had also gone to the house of their daughter at Chaloh. Her younger daughters also used to visit house of Parveen Kumari. After Rakhi, she went to the house of accused. She admitted that the house of accused Sarain Singh was in two parts, one was of slate portion having two rooms and a veranda, while the other house had lintel and two rooms. She further admitted that her daughter used to live in Pakka portion of house in one room and other part of house was occupied by accused Sarain Singh. Sarain Singh had two sons, younger was a driver and Sarain Singh himself was a retired Army personnel. He had agricultural land. She had not complained to the police or Panchayat about the harassment to her daughter by accused persons. She admitted that accused never asked for constructing house. She also admitted that between March 2009 to 15.8.2009, her daughter visited her house also. She stayed for nearly one month when she came on the occasion of Rakhi. She admitted that Jagbir used to ask Parveen to come back. Volunteered that he used to threaten her. 7. PW-2 Madan Lal, deposed that on 15.8.2009, at about 8.30/9 AM, Jagbir came to his house and he was accompanied by his son. After some time, his wife Parveen Kumari also came. She told that she had consumed some poisonous substance. Accused at this stage said that she was pretending. In the meanwhile, Parveen fell unconscious. He called the police and police advised him to carry Parveen to the hospital. She was taken to the hospital. In his cross-examination, he admitted that there was difference of about 5 minutes between the coming of deceased and accused to his house. When deceased fell down, accused Jagbir massaged the feet of deceased. Accused also accompanied the deceased when she was taken to the hospital. She was taken to the hospital. In his cross-examination, he admitted that there was difference of about 5 minutes between the coming of deceased and accused to his house. When deceased fell down, accused Jagbir massaged the feet of deceased. Accused also accompanied the deceased when she was taken to the hospital. Jagbir came to know about taking of some poisonous substance at his house. He was a Ward member. Jagbir Singh got married 4/5 years back. Parveen used to live with accused at the place of his work and also at Chaloh. Accused had two houses one was slate portioned and other was with lintel. Jagbir and his wife used to reside in the Pakka structure. He admitted that the ration cards of Sarain Singh and Jagbir were separate. Parveen never made any complaint to the Panchayat about the harassment. 8. PW-3 Chaman Lal deposed that he was called by the police at about 4.30 AM at the house of accused. A plastic bottle was found in the nearby field. Bottle was put in a cloth parcel. He identified Ext. P1. It was taken into possession vide Ext. PW-3/A. In his cross-examination, he admitted that Jagbir used to work in a factory. His wife used to live with him. Sarain had two houses. He admitted that Jagbir and his wife had come two days prior to the incident to the village. He also admitted that Sarain and Jagbir used to live separately. They had separate ration cards. Deceased or her family members have never complained against harassment to him. 9. PW-4 Rajesh Kumar is the brother of deceased. He deposed that accused used to harass his sister and demand was made to construct two rooms. They showed their inability to construct two rooms due to poverty. Two months back, Parveen Kumari visited their house. She told that accused were insisting for construction of house otherwise she should take her belongings and stay in a rented house. At that time also she told about beatings and harassment by the accused. After some time, accused Jagbir and his sister visited them. At that time also she repeated the same thing. Both of them stayed for 4/5 days and then accused Jagbir Singh went away leaving his sister. After some time, he rang up his sister to come back or take her belongings. After some time, accused Jagbir and his sister visited them. At that time also she repeated the same thing. Both of them stayed for 4/5 days and then accused Jagbir Singh went away leaving his sister. After some time, he rang up his sister to come back or take her belongings. He also asked to hand over minor son to him or give rent of room where her belongings were kept. Thereafter, Parveen Kumari went back. On 15.8.2009, at about 8.45 PM, his sister telephoned them. Call was received by his mother. She told that she was beaten up by accused and she had consumed some poisonous substance. They went to Chaloh and then to CHC Gangath. They reached at about 10.30 PM, by which time, Parveen Kumari had already died. In his cross-examination, he admitted that his brother-in-law worked at Bilaspur. His sister was also staying with him. She stayed there for about 2/3 months. From Bilaspur, accused came for work to Baijnath. His sister also used to live with accused at Baijnath. He also visited his sister at Bilaspur. 10. PW-5 Ajay Kumar deposed that on 15.8.2009 at about 9.30 PM, after taking meals, he was about to sleep. Parveen Kumari came to him and asked for his mobile. He handed over his mobile to her and she talked to her parents. She said that she had taken the medicine and asked her mother to take care of her son. She had also told that accused persons present in the Court had made her life difficult. In his cross-examination, he admitted that there was no demand of dowry in his presence. In his presence there were talks regarding construction of the house. 11. PW-8 Satish Kumar deposed that for 5-6 months after the marriage, the relations between accused and deceased were cordial. Father of the girl used to tell that accused persons were asking him to construct a room for them. Whenever there used to be a quarrel between girl and accused, father of girl used to make the girl understand. About 1-2 months prior to her death, Parveen had come to her parents. Her husband was with her. They stayed with parents of girl for 2-4 days. Then the girl had stayed back, whereas accused had gone away. In his cross- examination, he admitted that in his presence accused persons never demanded dowry. About 1-2 months prior to her death, Parveen had come to her parents. Her husband was with her. They stayed with parents of girl for 2-4 days. Then the girl had stayed back, whereas accused had gone away. In his cross- examination, he admitted that in his presence accused persons never demanded dowry. He was Ward Member of Panchayat. Girl or her parents have not moved any application before him. 12. PW-12 Dr. P.K. Aluwalia, has conducted post mortem examination. He issued post-mortem report Ext. PW-12/B. According to his opinion, cause of death was due to respiratory passage chocking with froth. In his opinion, death in the case was due to consumption of Organo Chloro poison leading to respiratory failure. He gave his final opinion vide Ext. PW-12/C. Post-mortem report is Ext. PW-12/B. He has noticed no fresh external injury on the body. 13. PW-14 ASI Gurdev deposed that Ext. PW-9/A was lodged in PP Gangath. He reached Gangath Hospital with other police officials. FIR was lodged at the instance of mother of deceased. He filled inquest papers, Ext. PW-8/A He also prepared spot map Ext. PW-14/C. In his cross-examination, he admitted that accused Jagbir Singh used to reside in a separate house with his family. 14. What emerges from the statements enumerated herein above, is that the relations between the accused and deceased were normal for 5-6 months. Case of the prosecution is that the accused used to insist the deceased to tell her parents to get two rooms constructed. However, in the statement of PW-1 Savitri Devi, it has come that she had also gone to the house of the accused and accused used to come to their house with deceased. She also admitted that her daughter used to live in Pakka portion of the house. Other members occupied slate portion. Sarain Singh had two sons. It has come on record that deceased had told that the accused Jagbir Singh remained at Bilaspur as well as Baijnath. PW-2 Madan Lal has admitted in his cross-examination that accused Sarain Singh had two houses one was slate portion and other having lintel portion. Jagbir Singh and his wife used to reside in Pakka portion of house. Ration cards of Jagbir Singh and Sarain Singh were separate. Parveen never made complaint of harassment to Panchayat. PW-2 Madan Lal has admitted in his cross-examination that accused Sarain Singh had two houses one was slate portion and other having lintel portion. Jagbir Singh and his wife used to reside in Pakka portion of house. Ration cards of Jagbir Singh and Sarain Singh were separate. Parveen never made complaint of harassment to Panchayat. Similarly, PW-3 Chaman Lal deposed that Jagbir Singh and his wife had come two days before this incident to the village. Sarain Singh and Jagbir used to live separately. They had separate ration cards. PW-4 Rajesh Kumar admitted in his cross-examination that he visited his sister at Bilaspur. He also admitted that his sister remained at Bilaspur for 2-3 months. Thereafter, Jagbir Singh came to Baijnath. PW-5 Ajay Kumar has stated in his cross-examination that there was no demand of dowry by accused persons. He also admitted that Parveen had not stated in his presence that accused persons had been torturing her. PW-8, Satish Kumar, Ward Member of Panchayat, also admitted that in his presence accused persons never tortured the girl. Father of deceased used to tell that accused were asking to construct room for them. However, fact of the matter is that father of deceased has not been cited as a witness. According to the prosecution version, deceased was beaten up and thereafter she consumed poison and rang up her parents. We have noticed that as per PW-12, Dr. P.K. Aluwalia, he has not noticed any marks of external injury on the body of the deceased. Even PW-14 ASI Gurdev has admitted that the accused Jagbir Singh used to reside in a separate house from his family. Since accused Jagbir Singh was residing in Pakka house with his wife and remaining members lived in Kachha house, thus, there were two houses owned by accused and as such there was no occasion for them to ask the deceased to get two rooms constructed for them by the deceased's family. Neither the deceased nor the family of the deceased lodged any complaint with the authorities about the demand made by the accused. No external injury has been noticed on the body of the deceased by PW-12 Dr. P.K. Ahluwalia. 15. Accused Jagbir used to visit in-laws on every important festival. Neither the deceased nor the family of the deceased lodged any complaint with the authorities about the demand made by the accused. No external injury has been noticed on the body of the deceased by PW-12 Dr. P.K. Ahluwalia. 15. Accused Jagbir used to visit in-laws on every important festival. There is neither any cogent nor convincing evidence against the accused to establish that they had maltreated or subjected deceased to cruelty and criminal cruelty was of such nature which was likely to derive the deceased to commit suicide. There is also no tangible evidence that accused Parveen Kumari had been abetted by accused persons to commit suicide. Independent witnesses examined by the prosecution have categorically stated that the deceased never made any complaint about the cruel behaviour of the accused regarding alleged demand of construction of two from, as noticed herein above. 16. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. No motive has been contributed to the accused. 17. Accordingly, we find no occasion to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned trial Court. The appeal is thus dismissed. All pending applications, are also disposed of. Bail bonds of the accused persons are discharged.