JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this appeal, the appellants/accused have challenged judgment, dated 28.04.2008, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una in Sessions Case No. 7/2007, vide which, accused Ashok Kumar was convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and accused Ashwani Kumar, Rakho Devi, Suresh Kumari and Tarsem Lal were convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Whereas accused Ashok Kumar was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Ashwani Kumar, Rakho Devi, Suresh Kumari and Tarsem Lal were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, for commission of offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. During the pendency of this appeal, appellant No. 1 Ashok Kumar and appellant No. 3 Smt. Rakho Devi died. 3. The case of the prosecution was that accused Ashok Kumar was the husband of deceased Ranjana Devi, accused Rakho Devi was the mother of accused Ashok Kumar, whereas accused Ashwani Kumar was his brother, accused Suresh Kumari alias Nisha Devi was his sister and accused Tarsem Lal was the husband of Suresh Kumari. Complainant Smt. Surinder Kaur was the mother of deceased, who was a resident of Village Bathri, District Una. Complainant had two sons and two daughters. Deceased Ranjana was married to accused Ashok Kumar in the year 2002. Further as per the prosecution, out of this marriage, a son was born, who was about 2½ years old. Immediately after marriage, accused started harassing Ranjana Devi on the issue of insufficient dowry. Deceased used to make a grievance of this fact whenever she visited her parental house. She also used to complain that accused Ashok Kumar was in the habit of demanding money. On 06.02.2006, deceased Ranjana had come to Village Pangla in Punjab to attend the marriage of the son of her mother’s sister (Mossi). Deceased used to make a grievance of this fact whenever she visited her parental house. She also used to complain that accused Ashok Kumar was in the habit of demanding money. On 06.02.2006, deceased Ranjana had come to Village Pangla in Punjab to attend the marriage of the son of her mother’s sister (Mossi). Thereafter, on 07.02.2006, accused Ashok Kumar also reached Pangla, where he had a quarrel with the deceased on demand of dowry. He left Village Pangla without attending the marriage. Ranjana returned to the house of her in-laws at Village Kangar after attending the marriage along with her son on 10.02.2006. On the same day, i.e., 10.02.2006, at about 8:00 p.m., accused Nisha informed the complainant on telephone that Ranjana had left her matrimonial house without informing anyone after leaving her son there. Thereafter, Ashok Kumar also intimated the complainant of this fact. On this, the complainant alongwith her family members started searching for Ranjana, but she could not be traced. On 13.02.2006, complainant made a missing report of Ranjana devi at Police Station, Haroli vide report No. 10, Ex. PW3/A. On the basis of this report, information was sent about the factum of Ranjana Devi being missing to different places through Wireless. In response, information was received on 16.02.2006 that dead body of a female had been found in Ganguwal Power House. After receipt of the said information, on 17.02.2006, ASI Raghubir Singh alongwith other police officials and relatives of the deceased went to Ganguwal Power House. The dead body of the deceased was identified by her relatives and thereafter the dead body was sent to Civil Hospital Anandpur Sahib in Punjab, where her post mortem was conducted. This was followed by recording of the statement of the complainant under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of which, FIR Ex. PW7/A was recorded at Police Station, Haroli on 17.02.2006. As per the post mortem report Ex. PW 9/A and report of Chemical Examiner Ex. PW9/B, the cause of death of the deceased was found to be aluminium phosphide poisoning. Investigation revealed that on 07.02.2006 at Pangla, accused Ashok Kumar had a quarrel with the deceased on account of dowry demand and had also threatened her that the marriage which the deceased was attending would be her last such like function and he will not spare the deceased in future. Investigation revealed that on 07.02.2006 at Pangla, accused Ashok Kumar had a quarrel with the deceased on account of dowry demand and had also threatened her that the marriage which the deceased was attending would be her last such like function and he will not spare the deceased in future. Further as per the prosecution, investigation also revealed that the accused used to harass the deceased for not bringing sufficient dowry and had killed her by administering poison. 4. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused and as a prima facie case was found against them, they were charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 15 witnesses. Learned Trial Court for the purpose of adjudication of the case, framed the following points : “1. Whether it is proved that on or about 10.2.2006 at Village Kangar, the accused Ashok Kumar being the husband of Ranjana Devi (now deceased) subjected her to cruelty and caused dowry death? 2. Whether it is proved that on or about 10.2.2006 the other accused being the relatives of deceased Ranjana Devi subjected her to cruelty and caused dowry death? 3. Whether it is proved that on or about 10.2.2006 at Village Kangar the accused in furtherance of their common intention caused the dead body of deceased Ranjana Devi to disappear with an intention to screen the offenders from legal punishment, knowing that dowry death of Ranjana Devi had been committed? 4. Final order.” 6. The points so framed, were answered by the learned Trial Court as under: “Point No. 1: Yes. Point No. 2: No. Point No. 3: Yes. Final Order: Accused Ashok Kumar convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 304B and 201 of IPC and acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 498A IPC while all other accused are convicted of the offence punishable u/s 201 IPC and acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 304B and 498A of I.P.C. per operative portion of the judgment.” 7. Learned Trial Court held that prosecution had been able to establish its case against the accused Ashok Kumar beyond all reasonable doubt that at the relevant time, he caused dowry death of Ranjana Devi. Learned Trial Court held that prosecution had been able to establish its case against the accused Ashok Kumar beyond all reasonable doubt that at the relevant time, he caused dowry death of Ranjana Devi. While arriving at the said conclusion, learned Trial Court relied upon the statements of Smt. Surinder Kaur, i.e., the complainant, who deposed in the Court as PW-5. Learned Trial Court held that the statement of PW-5 was duly corroborated by the brother of the deceased Sunny Kumar, who entered the witness box as PW-6. Learned Trial Court also held that PW-14 Pawan Kumar, who was the brother-in-law of the deceased, also fully corroborated and proved the case of the prosecution. Learned Trial Court thus held that from the evidence of PW-5, PW-6 and PW-14, it stood proved that marriage of the deceased took place with the deceased in the year 2002 and that they had also proved the factum of cruelty and harassment meted out to the deceased on the part of accused Ashok Kumar. Learned Trial Court held that their statements were cogent, convincing and trustworthy. It further held that medical and other evidence on record established that death took place on or about 10.02.2006 or between 10.02.2006 to 16.02.2006, during the period when the deceased was missing. It further held that death had taken place within 7 years of the marriage and further that there was sufficient evidence on record to prove that the death was not natural or accidental death. Learned Trial Court also held that the fact that body was found in a canal and death had not taken place due to drowning, led to the inference that the death had not taken place in normal circumstances. Learned Trial Court thereafter held that as such crimes are generally committed in privacy of residential houses and in secrecy, it was not easy to get independent and direct evidence. It further held that there was sufficient evidence on record to prove that soon before the death of the victim, she was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry by accused Ashok Kumar. Learned Trial Court also held that the conduct of accused was also unusual, because accused Ashok Kumar between 10.02.2016 and 16.02.2016 did nothing except informing his mother-in-law. He did not even report the matter in the Police Station nor he made any other to search his wife. Learned Trial Court also held that the conduct of accused was also unusual, because accused Ashok Kumar between 10.02.2016 and 16.02.2016 did nothing except informing his mother-in-law. He did not even report the matter in the Police Station nor he made any other to search his wife. Learned Trial Court held that such conduct was unnatural and reflected that there was something wrong on his part. Learned Trial Court also held that though it was true that neither deceased nor her parents had made any complainant against the accused to the Panchayat or Police prior to the occurrence of the incident, but this did not mean that they were deposing falsely. It further held that it was common knowledge that in rural areas, people from rural background try to settle the dispute amicably, because the intention of the parents of the victim or even that of wife is to bear the sufferings with the hope that with the passage of time, things will be automatically settled. As far as the factum of dowry not being referred to in the first report dated 13.02.2006, Ex. PW3/A is concerned, learned Trial Court observed that at the relevant time, probably complainant was not thinking that her daughter had been killed or harassed on account of dowry demand. Learned Trial Court held that it could be inferred that the deceased had suffered mental agony and cruelty on the part of accused Ashok Kumar, when he quarrelled with her in the presence of her relatives and when she returned to her matrimonial house on 10.02.2006, she was not welcomed, rather she had to face the anger and wrath of her husband and she might have thought to bring an end to her life by consuming aluminium phosphide. It further held that there was no explanation on the part of accused Ashok Kumar that if he had not harassed the deceased, then what was the reason for the deceased to have had ended her life. On these basis, learned Trial Court held that as it stood proved that the deceased had died under unnatural circumstances within 7 years of her marriage with Ashok Kumar accused and the cause of her death was cruelty or harassment by him on account of demand of dowry, thus, he was guilty of offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. It further held that as far as other accused were concerned, though there was not sufficient evidence on record to connect them with the commission of offence punishable under Section 304B or 498A of the Indian Penal Code, however, the circumstances point out that it was they who had thrown the body of the deceased in the canal so that evidence of her death or cause of her death disappear. On these basis, learned Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Feeling aggrieved, accused filed this appeal, out of which, two have already died, as already mentioned above. 9. Mr. Ajay Chandel, learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously argued that the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court was not sustainable in the eyes of law, as the same was completely perverse, as the findings returned by the learned Trial Court were based on conjectures and surmises. According to Mr. Chandel, prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and this very important aspect of the matter was ignored by the learned Trial Court. Mr. Chandel also argued that the contents of the judgment itself were self indicative that learned Trial Court had passed the judgment of conviction on conjectures and not on the basis of conclusions drawn from the evidence on record. According to Mr. Chandel, learned Trial Court had very conveniently ignored the crucial evidence on record, which clearly and categorically demonstrated that the accused were not guilty of the offences alleged against them. He argued that there was nothing on record from which it could be inferred that the deceased allegedly consumed poison on account of harassment meted out to her by accused Ashok Kumar. He further argued that there was no evidence on record that the body of the deceased was thrown into a canal by all the accused, as has been held by the learned Trial Court. Mr. Chandel argued that it was settled principle of law that an accused had the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty and that it was not for the accused to prove their innocence, rather the onus was upon the prosecution to prove their guilt. Mr. Chandel argued that it was settled principle of law that an accused had the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty and that it was not for the accused to prove their innocence, rather the onus was upon the prosecution to prove their guilt. As per him, despite the prosecution not having led any cogent evidence to prove that either the deceased had allegedly consumed poison on account of alleged harassment caused to her by the accused or that the accused had thrown dead body of the deceased in the canal, the accused stood convicted for the said offences by the learned Trial Court, which amounted to travesty of justice. Accordingly, he prayed that the judgment of conviction may be set aside. 10. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court was a well reasoned judgment, which was passed on correct appreciation of evidence on record and the same called for no interference. He further argued that the learned Trial Court had taken into consideration all aspects of the matter and after discussing the evidence on record, it had returned the findings of guilt against the accused, which findings did not warrant any interference. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, as also the records of the case. 12. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 15 witnesses. 13. PW-1 is one Shri Tara Singh, who stated that he was working as a T-Mate in Ganguwal Hydel Project and that on 16.02.2006, he was on duty on a Crane and when he lifted Gate No. 7, he saw a dead body of a female, which fact he informed to the person In-charge. He further deposed that in the evening, Police from Police Station Haroli reached there, but at that time as it was already 5 p.m., he asked the police to come with some identifier on the next day. Police again came with the relatives of deceased next day at around 10:00 a.m. This witness also deposed that the dead body was identified by the mother, brother and husband of the deceased, who disclosed name of the deceased as Ranjana Devi. 14. PW2 Nand Lal stated that he was Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Bathari from December, 2000 to December, 2005. 14. PW2 Nand Lal stated that he was Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Bathari from December, 2000 to December, 2005. He further stated that he knew complainant Surinder Kaur. He deposed that deceased Ranjana was daughter of Surinder Kaur, who was married to accused Ashok Kumar on 17.02.2006. He further stated that at the instance of SHO, Police Station Haroli, he went to Hydel Project Ganguwal alongwith mother and other relatives of deceased and they had taken out the dead body from the canal, which was identified to be that of Ranjana Devi. He further deposed that Surinder Kaur had only told him that her daughter had disappeared and nothing else. He thereafter stated that she had also told him that there was a dispute between the deceased and her in-laws. This witness was declared as a hostile witness and in his cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he denied that Surinder Kaur had told him that in-laws of Ranjana Devi used to harass her on the pretext of bringing less dowry. Further in his cross-examination by the accused, he admitted it to be correct that during his tenure as Pradhan, neither Surinder Kaur nor any of the relatives of the deceased had ever made any complaint against harassment of the deceased by her in-laws. 15. The next relevant witness is PW-5 Surinder Kaur, i.e., the complainant. This witness deposed in the Court that her husband was dead and she was having four children. She stated that Ranjana Devi was her youngest daughter, who was married to accused Ashok Kumar in the year 2002. Ranjana had given birth to a male child. Accused used to demand dowry from her daughter since the date of her marriage and deceased used to make such complaints to her about accused torturing the deceased. She further deposed that about 1 ½ years back, they had gone to attend a marriage of her sister’s son at Pangla, where her daughter and accused Ashok Kumar were also present. She stated that in the said marriage, accused Ashok Kumar had quarrelled with her daughter on the demand of dowry. Accused Ashok had also left the place of marriage before the completion of ceremonies. Deceased thereafter went to her in-laws on 10th day of that month. She stated that in the said marriage, accused Ashok Kumar had quarrelled with her daughter on the demand of dowry. Accused Ashok had also left the place of marriage before the completion of ceremonies. Deceased thereafter went to her in-laws on 10th day of that month. Next day, she received an information that her daughter had left the house of her in-laws without information and that her son was ill. She further deposed that they made search for Ranjana Devi in the houses of their relatives. She further stated that after 7 days, they received intimation from Pradhan that dead body of Ranjana was lying at Ganguwal. She went there and identified the body of deceased Ranjana Devi. She also stated that she made a statement before the Police, which was Ex. PW-5/A. In her cross-examination, she stated that she was not aware as to who was the mediator in the settlement of marriage of her daughter with accused Ashok Kumar. She further stated that father of the accused was a bed ridden person. She further stated that marriage of sister of Ashok Kumar took place prior to the marriage of Ashok Kumar and that husband of the sister of Ashok Kumar, namely Nishi Devi was owning a truck. She stated that Nisha Devi was living with her in-laws in Village Daroli in Punjab. She further stated that she had gone to Police Post Haroli for lodging the missing report of her daughter with her Devar Sodhi Ram. She further stated that she had informed the Police about harassment meted out by the accused to her daughter, but Police did not reduce this fact into writing. She stated that she had never informed Nand Lal, Pradhan about the harassment of her daughter by the accused. She denied the suggestion that one Bikkar had informed her that she had seen Ranjana with her brother-in-law Pawan Kumar at Santoshgarh on the evening of 10th February. She admitted it to be correct that they never reported the matter about harassment of their daughter to Panchayat etc. She denied the suggestion that there was a talk in the Village that her daughter was last seen with her elder son-in-law Pawan Kumar before she went missing. 16. Brother of the deceased, namely, Sunny Kumar entered the witness box as PW-6. He deposed that he resided at Amritsar. She denied the suggestion that there was a talk in the Village that her daughter was last seen with her elder son-in-law Pawan Kumar before she went missing. 16. Brother of the deceased, namely, Sunny Kumar entered the witness box as PW-6. He deposed that he resided at Amritsar. He stated that his sister Ranjana was married to Ashok Kumar in the year 2002. She gave birth to a male child. After 6-7 months of marriage, Ranjana started complaining that her husband was harassing her on account of dowry. He further stated that on 08.02.2006, there was a marriage of their cousin at Village Pangla and to attend that marriage his sister came there on 06.02.2006. Accused Ashok Kumar reached there on 07.02.2006. He started demanding money from them and heated arguments took place. At that time, Ranjana was also present there. This witness further stated that they showed their inability to fulfill his demand, on which Ashok Kumar returned back. He further stated that Ashok Kumar had asked his sister to accompany him to his village as he did not wanted her to attend the marriage and he threatened her that otherwise she will face dire consequences. He further stated that Ashok Kumar left the place on 08.02.2006, whereas Ranjana Devi went to the house of her in-laws on 10.02.2006. He further stated that on 11.02.2006, a telephonic call was received from the house of in-laws of his sister that Ranjana Devi had left their house without informing and they wanted to inquire whether she had come to them or not. He further stated that after one hour, they received another telephonic call of Ashok Kumar, who also informed that Ranjana Devi had left their house. He further stated that on 12.02.2006, they went to the house of accused to make inquiries. He further stated that on 12.02.2006, they had gone to Police Station Haroli to lodge a complaint, but police did not lodge their report. He further stated that on 13.02.2006, they again went to Police Station Haroli alongwith some respectable persons of their village and then a report was lodged by the police. He further stated that they searched for Ranjana for 67 days at different places. On 16.02.2006, they also organized a Dharna before Police Station Haroli to take action in the matter. He further stated that on 13.02.2006, they again went to Police Station Haroli alongwith some respectable persons of their village and then a report was lodged by the police. He further stated that they searched for Ranjana for 67 days at different places. On 16.02.2006, they also organized a Dharna before Police Station Haroli to take action in the matter. He deposed that on 17.02.2006, they received an information from their Pradhan that a dead body of female was found in Ganguwal Power House and when they went there, they identified the dead body to be that of accused Ranjana Devi. He further stated that his sister died due to ill-treatment meted out to her by her husband. In his cross-examination, he admitted it to be correct that after the marriage of his sister in 2002 till her death, they had never reported to the police or Panchayat or to any other relative in the village regarding harassment meted out to the deceased by the accused. He denied the suggestion that Bikkar had told him that on 10.02.2006, he had seen Ranjana with his elder brother-in-law Pawan at Santoshgarh Chowk. 17. Next relevant witness is Dr. Anand Ghai, PW9, who had conducted the post mortem of deceased Ranjana Devi. He stated that as per viscera report, the cause of death was poisoning. He deposed that at the time of post mortem, there was no water in the lungs of the dead body. He admitted the suggestion that probable time between death and post mortem had been given merely on guess. 18. Investigating Officer, ASI Raghubir Singh entered the witness box as PW-12 and he deposed about the mode and manner under which the investigation was carried out in the matter. In his cross-examination, he stated that neither mother of the deceased nor her other family members ever came to the Police Station in his presence. He admitted the suggestion that parents of Ranjana Devi never organized any Dharna before the Police Station Haroli regarding alleged inaction of police. He admitted it to be correct that before 17.02.2006, PWs. Surinder Kaur, Sunny, Pawan Kumar and Sanjana Devi never made any complaint regarding harassment of Ranjana Devi by the accused. He admitted it to be correct that it had come in his investigation that Ranjana had gone alone on 10.02.2006 by bus from Kangar to Haroli side. He admitted it to be correct that before 17.02.2006, PWs. Surinder Kaur, Sunny, Pawan Kumar and Sanjana Devi never made any complaint regarding harassment of Ranjana Devi by the accused. He admitted it to be correct that it had come in his investigation that Ranjana had gone alone on 10.02.2006 by bus from Kangar to Haroli side. He further stated that in Kangar Village, none told him that accused used to harass Ranjana Devi. 19. PW-14 Pawan Kumar, brother-in-law of deceased deposed that Ranjana was married to accused in the year 2006 and that whenever Ranjana used to meet him, she used to inform him that her husband and other family members used to demand dowry. Thereafter, he deposed about the marriage of cousin of his wife at Village Pangla, where deceased was also present alongwith Ashok Kumar. He deposed that on 07.02.2006, there was a quarrel between Ranjana and her husband, but he did not knew the cause of the same. He further stated that Ashok Kumar left on the morning of next day, whereas Ranjana went back on 10.02.2006 after attending the marriage. He further stated that on 11.02.2006, he received a telephone call from his in-laws that they had received a message from the in-laws of Ranjana that Ranjana was not there and whether she had come to his house, upon which he told that she was not there. He further stated that thereafter he rang his mother-in-law and told her about the same. Thereafter, he started searching for Ranjana, but she could not be traced. He also stated that on 13.02.2006, they reported the matter to the Police at Police Station Haroli and on 17.02.2006, in the morning they came to know that the dead body of Ranjana Devi was found in Ganguwal Power House. In his cross-examination, he stated that his marriage took place in the year 2006. He admitted the suggestion that at the time of settlement of marriage of Ranjana and Ashok Kumar, no demand was made by her in-laws regarding dowry. He also admitted the suggestion that on 11.02.2006, wife of his elder brother-in-law had telephonically inquired about Ranjana’s presence in their house. 20. He admitted the suggestion that at the time of settlement of marriage of Ranjana and Ashok Kumar, no demand was made by her in-laws regarding dowry. He also admitted the suggestion that on 11.02.2006, wife of his elder brother-in-law had telephonically inquired about Ranjana’s presence in their house. 20. Before proceeding further, it is also relevant to refer to the contents of the statement of the complainant so recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the contents of the missing report made by her. Ex. PW3/A is the copy of the rapat dated 13.02.2006. The rapat was entered at the behest of Surinder Kaur (PW-5). It is mentioned in the said rapat that complainant had a daughter, namely Ranjana, who was married in November, 2002 with Ashok Kumar. On 10.02.2006 at around 8 p.m., Nisha had telephonically informed her that Ranjana had left the house of her in-laws on 10.02.2006 without informing anyone. Complainant also mentioned that she was informed that Ranjana had left her young son behind who was ill. It is further mentioned in this report that at 8:30 p.m., Ashok Kumar telephonically inquired from the complainant as to whether Ranjana was with her and when she informed Ashok that Ranjana was not with her, Ashok told her that she had left for her parental house without informing anyone. It is further mentioned in the report that thereafter complainant had searched for her daughter at various places and as Ranjana was not found, therefore, appropriate action in this regard be taken. 21. Statement of complainant made under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is on record as Ex. PW-5/A and copy of FIR is on record as Ex. PW7/A. In the statement made under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure inter alia it was mentioned that daughter of the complainant had committed suicide as a result of cruelty inflicted upon her by her husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law and husband of sister-in-law. It is evident from the perusal of contents of missing report Ex. PW3/B and the contents of statement recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as also the contents of FIR that there is variation in the same. Whereas in the missing report Ex. It is evident from the perusal of contents of missing report Ex. PW3/B and the contents of statement recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as also the contents of FIR that there is variation in the same. Whereas in the missing report Ex. PW3/B, there is no mention made therein by Surinder Kaur that Ranjana might have left the house of her in-laws because of cruelty being meted out to her by her husband and other family members, this fact was introduced by the complainant first time in her statement recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after discovery of dead body of Ranjana. 22. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter remains that this allegation that deceased was treated with cruelty by her husband and other family members from her in-laws side has not been substantiated by the prosecution by producing any evidence worth its name. Mother, brother and brother-in-law of the deceased, who entered into the witness box as PW-5, PW-6 and PW-14, respectively have clearly admitted in their cross-examinations that as from the date of marriage of the deceased with the accused and till her death, they had never made any complaint whatsoever either with Panchayat or police etc. or with any other relative that the deceased was being ill-treated by her in-laws, who were demanding dowry from her. 23. This Court is not oblivious of the fact that in the present case, deceased has died an unnatural death and that too within seven years of the marriage. Of course, as per the provisions of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, when the question is as to whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. However, still this presumption has to be substantiated by some evidence worth its name by the prosecution, which in my considered opinion, in the present case, the prosecution has failed to do. However, still this presumption has to be substantiated by some evidence worth its name by the prosecution, which in my considered opinion, in the present case, the prosecution has failed to do. As already mentioned above, there is no evidence on record except the statements of mother, brother and brother-in-law of the deceased that the deceased was subjected to cruelty on demand of dowry either by her husband or other accused. Besides this, it has come on record that the cause of death of the deceased was consumption of poison. Recovery of the dead body from the water canal is also not in dispute. Now, there is no witness, who has seen either the deceased consuming poison or the dead body of the deceased being thrown by the accused in the canal. In fact the findings returned by the learned Trial Court while convicting the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code by holding that circumstances point out that it was the accused who had thrown away the dead body of the deceased in the canal, are perverse findings, because these findings are not based on any evidence on record. Rather these findings are merely based on conjectures and surmises by the learned Trial Court. It is not understood as to how learned Trial Court has returned said findings, especially when it has come on record in the statement of the Investigating Officer himself that as per his investigation, Ranjana was seen going alone on 10.02.2006 by bus from Kangar to Haroli side. Similarly, as nothing has been produced on record by the prosecution to suggest that the deceased was subjected to harassment on the demand of dowry either by the husband or other accused, the conviction of husband for commission of offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is also not sustainable. In fact while holding accused, being guilty of the offences, for which they were convicted, learned Trial Court erred in not appreciating that no conviction can be ordered by a Court of law until and unless prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In fact while holding accused, being guilty of the offences, for which they were convicted, learned Trial Court erred in not appreciating that no conviction can be ordered by a Court of law until and unless prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, on the strength of the evidence on record, in my considered view, by no stretch of imagination it could be said that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. This Court is not suggesting that evidence on record did not create suspicion that the accused might have committed the crime, for which they were charged, but then the fact of the matter remains that suspicion is not a substitute for proof. In the absence of there being cogent and reliable proof that the deceased had consumed poison on account of cruelty meted out to her by Ashok Kumar on the demand of dowry and further that her dead body was thrown in the canal by the accused, the accused could not have been convicted. 24. No independent witness has corroborated the case of the prosecution that deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused. As far as the testimonies of mother, brother and brother-in-law of the deceased are concerned, they being close relatives of the deceased and interested parties, their statements are liable to be scrutinized carefully. In my considered view, the testimonies of neither of the said three witnesses are trustworthy. This is for the reason that there is no explanation as to why when the missing report was lodged, the factum of deceased being harassed by the accused for demand of dowry was not mentioned there, especially when according to the complainant, accused Ashok Kumar allegedly had entered into a quarrel with the deceased on the demand of dowry on 7th February, 2006, i.e., about three days before the date when the deceased went missing. In addition, the explanation given by all these witnesses as to why earlier matter was not reported to Panchayat or Police etc. also does not inspires confidence in the absence of any material produced by the prosecution on record to suggest that the deceased was being harassed by the accused on the demand of dowry. In addition, the explanation given by all these witnesses as to why earlier matter was not reported to Panchayat or Police etc. also does not inspires confidence in the absence of any material produced by the prosecution on record to suggest that the deceased was being harassed by the accused on the demand of dowry. Besides this, there is variation in the version of mother and brother of the deceased with regard to the alleged incident, which took place on 7th February, 2006. Whereas the version of the mother is that accused Ashok Kumar demanded money from the deceased and when deceased expressed her inability to provide any money to the accused, he took up a quarrel with her parents, the version of the brother is that the accused initially demanded money from them, i.e., the family members of the deceased and when they expressed their inability to pay any amount to the accused, he took up a quarrel with the deceased. This variation in the statement of the mother and the brother of the deceased could not be satisfactorily explained during the course of arguments by the learned Additional Advocate General. 25. Not only this, as far as PW-14 Pawan Kumar is concerned, he has deposed in the Court that he was not aware as to what was the cause of quarrel on the evening of 7th February, 2006 between the accused and the family members of the deceased. 26. Therefore, in my considered view, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court against the accused is perverse, contrary to the records of the case and, therefore, not sustainable in the eyes of law. On the strength of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the prosecution was able to connect the accused with the commission of the offences for which they were charged. Therefore, as the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, they were entitled for benefit of doubt. This very important aspect of the matter has also been overlooked by the learned Trial Court while convicting the accused. 27. In view of above discussion, this appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 28.04.2008, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una in Sessions Case No. 7/2007 is set aside. The accused are acquitted of the offences charged against them. 27. In view of above discussion, this appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 28.04.2008, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una in Sessions Case No. 7/2007 is set aside. The accused are acquitted of the offences charged against them. It is further directed that the fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused, shall be refunded in their favour, in accordance with law. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. Appeal stands disposed of.