JUDGMENT : Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 378 (iii) & (i) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant State of Rajasthan being aggrieved with the judgment dated 19.08.1993 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial Court’) in Sessions Case No. 198/1992 whereby, the learned trial Court has acquitted all the accused/respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. 2. As per the prosecution story, in the intervening night of 19th/20th July, 1992, PW-12 Bhanwar Singh has submitted a written report (Ex.P/18) at Police Station Mahamandir, Jodhpur stated therein that his sister (Indira) is married with Gopal Singh and both of them are having one son out of the said wedlock. It is also alleged that after marriage of his sister (Indira) with Gopal Singh, his parents have separated him as he was unemployed. It is also alleged that the father-in-law (Girdhari Singh) and mother-in-law (Smt. Kiran Kanwar) of his sister were annoyed while saying that at the time of marriage, the guests were not served properly and for this reason, they used to harass her and also used to beat her. It is further alleged that before some time, he brought his sister (Indira) to their house but later on, with the intervention of the relatives, she was again sent to her in-laws’ house. It is stated that on 19th July, 2992, he went to meet Indira at his in-laws’ house and at that time she was very much sad. Later on at about 12 pm, he came to know that his sister (Indira) is admitted in the hospital on account of burn injuries then, he along with his mother PW-13 Uchchhab Kanwar went to the hospital where, Indira told that her husband (Gopal Singh), father-in-law (Girdhari Singh) and mother-in-law (Smt. Kiran Kanwar) used to harass her and, therefore, she has burnt herself by pouring the kerosene. 3. On receiving this report, the Police has registered an FIR for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC. At about 1:07 pm on 20th July, 1992, police statement of Indira was recorded as Exhibit-10. Thereafter, in the day on 20th July, 1992, dying declaration of Indira was recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4, Jodhpur as Exhibit-15. Police statement of Indira under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was again recorded as Exhibit-P/11. At about 1:07 pm on 20th July, 1992, police statement of Indira was recorded as Exhibit-10. Thereafter, in the day on 20th July, 1992, dying declaration of Indira was recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4, Jodhpur as Exhibit-15. Police statement of Indira under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was again recorded as Exhibit-P/11. On 21st July, 1992, again, the statement of Indira was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Police as Exhibit-P/7. Again on 22nd July, 1992, dying declaration of Indira was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur as Exhibit-P/17. During pendency of the investigation, Indira died on 25th July, 1992. 4. The Police, after concluding the investigation into the allegations leveled against the accused/respondents, has filed charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. The trial Court has also framed charges against the accused/respondents for the aforesaid charges. 5. During the course of trial, the prosecution has produced as many as 15 witnesses and has also got exhibited several documents. The statements of the accused/respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and some documents were produced in defence. However, no witness has been produced by the defence. 6. The learned trial Court after concluding the trial and after taking into consideration the prosecution evidence has acquitted all the accused/respondents for the offences for which they have been charged. Hence, this appeal. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant State of Rajasthan has argued that the prosecution has proved all the charges leveled against the accused/respondents beyond reasonable doubts but the learned trial Court, without appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution in right perspective, has acquitted all the accused/respondents for the charges for which they have been charged. Learned Public Prosecutor has invited attention of the Court towards the statement of PW-12 Bhanwar Singh, the first informant, PW-13 Uchchhab Kanwar (mother of the deceased Indira) and PW-15 Kalu Singh (father of the deceased Indira) and has argued that from the evidence of all the above witnesses, the charges leveled against the accused/respondents for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC have been fully proved. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the accused/respondents have harassed the deceased (Indira) for dowry and her husband has forced her to bring money by selling the plot. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the accused/respondents have harassed the deceased (Indira) for dowry and her husband has forced her to bring money by selling the plot. Learned Public Prosecutor has also argued that the sister of the complainant PW-12 Bhanwar Singh and daughter of PW-13 Uchchhab Kanwar and PW-15 Kalu Singh died within seven years of her marriage and ample evidence is available on record to prove that the accused/respondents have harassed her for dowry and she died on that account and, therefore, the charges leveled against the accused/respondents for dowry death and cruelty are fully proved against them and, therefore, this appeal may kindly be allowed while setting aside the impugned judgment and the accused/respondents are liable to be convicted for the offences for which they have been charged and are liable to be suitably sentenced. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the accused/respondents have argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused/respondents and the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in acquitting all the accused/respondents vide impugned judgment. 10. It is also contended that there are five dying declarations of the deceased Indira on record and in all those declarations, the deceased has stated contradictory facts which have been taken note by the learned trial Court and thereafter only, the learned trial Court has gave a specific finding that in the dying declarations or the police statements of the deceased, prior to reaching of her father PW-15 Kalu Singh, the deceased has kept saying that she committed suicide at her own and the accused/respondents are not involved in the incident. However, after reaching her father, for the first time, she has leveled allegations against the accused/respondents. 11. It is also argued that the trial Court has also taken into consideration the statement of PW-12 Bhanwar Singh, who has stated that his father was not satisfied with the earlier statements of the deceased Indira, therefore, he has forced the Investigating Agency to record her further statements because he wants to involve/implicate the mother and father of the accused/respondent Gopal Singh in the incident. 12. Learned counsel has, therefore, submitted that there is no evidence on record to suggest that prior to death of deceased Indira, the accused/respondents have harassed her for dowry. 12. Learned counsel has, therefore, submitted that there is no evidence on record to suggest that prior to death of deceased Indira, the accused/respondents have harassed her for dowry. Learned counsel for the respondents have, therefore, prayed that there is no force in this appeal, therefore, the present appeal may kindly be dismissed while maintaining the judgment of the trial Court acquitting the accused/respondents. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also scrutinized the record of the case. 14. The learned trial Court has observed that in the complaint (Ex.P/18) filed by the brother of the deceased, there is no allegation that the accused/respondents have demanded dowry after the marriage. The trial Court has also taken note of the fact that PW-12 Bhanwar Singh (brother of the deceased), PW-13 Uchchhab Kanwar (mother of the deceased) and PW-15 Kalu Singh (father of the deceased) in their statements have stated that the accused/respondents have demanded Rs.50,000/- as dowry but such facts have not been disclosed by them in their police statements. 15. The learned trial Court has taken note of the fact that as per the dying declarations of the deceased recorded, after reaching his father at Jodhpur, the deceased has stated that at the time of incident, the neighbours were gathered there and helped the accused/respondents in taking her to the hospital but none of the neighbours have been examined by the prosecution. 16. The learned trial Court has also taken into consideration the statement of PW-12 Bhanwar Singh (brother of the deceased) recorded before the Court wherein, he has stated that his father was not satisfied with the statements given by deceased in which she has given statements against Gopal Singh (husband of the deceased) only and his father wanted that all the accused should be implicated and be charge sheeted in this case and, therefore, PW-12 has given an application to the City Magistrate for recording further statements of deceased Indira for the aforesaid purpose. 17. The learned trial Court was of the opinion that from the above statement of PW-12 Bhanwar Singh (brother of the deceased), it is clear that the father of the deceased wants to implicate the mother and father of the accused/respondent Gopal Singh and, therefore, only for this reason, the deceased Indira has changed her statements time and again. 18. 17. The learned trial Court was of the opinion that from the above statement of PW-12 Bhanwar Singh (brother of the deceased), it is clear that the father of the deceased wants to implicate the mother and father of the accused/respondent Gopal Singh and, therefore, only for this reason, the deceased Indira has changed her statements time and again. 18. The learned trial Court has also taken into consideration the fact that as many as 5 statements of the deceased were recorded before her death, three by the police and 2 by the different Magistrates. In all statements recorded prior to reaching of her father at Jodhpur, she has not blamed any of the accused/respondents for the incident but in her statements recorded on 22.07.1992 (Ex.P/17) by the Magistrate, the deceased has implicated all the accused/respondents for the alleged incident and from the evidence of PW-12 Bhanwar Singh, it is clear that the deceased was under pressure of her father. 19. The learned trial Court has also taken note of the fact that PW-12 Bhanwar Singh (brother of the deceased) has also stated that the further statements of the deceased were recorded by another Magistrate on 24.07.1992 but no such statement has been produced on record by the prosecution and from that it appears that in her last dying declaration, the deceased has not named the accused/respondents and, therefore, the said statement has not been produced by the prosecution during the course of trial. 20. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after carefully scrutinizing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused/respondents beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court, after taking into consideration the entire evidence available on record, has not committed any illegality in acquitting the accused/respondents from the charges for which they have been charged. 21. In view of the above discussions, no case for interference in the impugned judgment dated 19.08.1993 is made out. Hence, the present criminal appeal preferred by the appellate State is dismissed.