JUDGMENT H.S. Madaan, J. - Vide this judgment, I propose to dispose of CRA-S-1722- SB-2004 filed by accused Ajay Kumar, Bachno Devi @ Bacho (since died, appeal abated), Ravinder Pal @ Kala and Shammo Devi, who were tried and convicted by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur for an offence under Section 304-B IPC vide judgment dated 24.8.2004 and vide order of the same date, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each. 2. The accused-convicts, who are appellants before this Court in CRA-S-1722-SB-2004 pray that the appeal be accepted, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence be set aside and they be acquitted of the charge framed against them. 3. Whereas complainant Govinder Attri has brought CRR-70- 2005 craving for enhancement of sentence. 4. 2. The accused-convicts, who are appellants before this Court in CRA-S-1722-SB-2004 pray that the appeal be accepted, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence be set aside and they be acquitted of the charge framed against them. 3. Whereas complainant Govinder Attri has brought CRR-70- 2005 craving for enhancement of sentence. 4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that complainant Govinder Attri son of Chaman Lal, resident of Kota (Bariar), Tehsil and District Gurdaspur submitted a written complaint to the police stating therein that his sister Amarjit Kaur was married with accused Ajay Kumar son of late Sh.Chaman Lal, JE-I, Railway Department, resident of Sarna on 16.2.1999; that at that time, they had given dowry as per their capacity, however, after the marriage Amarjit Kaur was harassed on account of demand of more dowry and her husband Ajay Kumar was having illicit relations with his sister-in-law Shammo Devi, wife of his brother Ravinder Pal alias Kala; that Amarjit Kaur was in fact harassed by her husband Ajay Kumar, mother-in-law Bachno, brother-in-law Kala and Kala's wife Shammo Devi, who used to taunt her to bring more dowry articles and they would give beatings to Amarjit Kaur also; that the complainant along with his friend Sansar Chand son of Dass Ram, resident of Raval Gadrian and his uncle Dev Raj son of Dhanna Ram, resident of Patiala went to the matrimonial home of Amarjit Kaur and tried to counsel the accused not to maltreat Amarjit Kaur as they had already given sufficient dowry according to their capacity and were unable to give more dowry articles but to no effect; that the accused continued harassing Amarjit Kaur; that Amarjit Kaur had been blessed with a son on 4.2.2001; that at that time the complainant side had given valuable items, however, demand of dowry by husband and his family members from Amarjit Kaur continued; that on 5.11.2001 Amarjit Kaur reached village Kota and stated that her in-laws were pressing for more dowry and cash amount on the eve of Diwali festival further stating that if she would not bring refrigerator for Bachno Devi, gold ear ring for Shammo, motorcycle for Ajay Kumar, ring for Jeth Kala, then she would be done to death and second marriage of Ajay Kumar would be performed. According to the complainant, he arranged some money and about 3-4 days before Diwali, he along with some respectables including Dev Raj son of Dhanna Ram, resident of Patiala, Raj Kumar son of Charan Dass, resident of Kota, Harpal Singh Bains son of Milkha Singh, resident of Bariar, Som Nath son of Santokh Raj, resident of Kota went to the matrimonial home of Amarjit Kaur and gave a gold bracelet, a pair of gold ear rings and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in cash for purchase of Fridge to accused and requested them not to harass Amarjit Kaur further; that on 10.12.2001, Sansar Chand son of Dass Ram, resident of Raval Gadrian went to the matrimonial home of Amarjit Kaur and he observed that accused Ajay Kumar under the influence of liquor was giving filthy abuses to Amarjit Kaur and he even gave beatings to her in his presence, in the meanwhile mother-in-law Bachno Devi, Jethani Shammo and Jeth Kala also came there and they instead of stopping accused Ajay Kumar from doing so, joined him in giving beatings to Amarjit Kaur and also exhorted Ajay Kumar to finish of the matter once for all; that they also said that let Amarjit Kaur be put up before the train; that Sansar Chand tried to rescue Amarjit Kaur, then all the accused started giving beatings to Sansar Chand and he returned home being frightened and narrated the entire story to the complainant stating that there was risk to the life of Amarjit Kaur at the hands of accused. The complainant further submitted that on 11.12.2001, being fed up with such state of affairs, Amarjit Kaur ended her life by lying on the railway track and got crushed under the train; that at that time his father Chaman Lal and mother Parkash Devi being under pressure and in depression and not in full state of mind, could not narrate the real story of the case. 5. On the basis of such written complaint by Govinder Attri, an endorsement was made by the Investigating Officer Banarsi Dass, who sent ruqa to the police station, formal FIR was recorded. The matter was investigated. The site-plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. Earlier inquest proceedings had been conducted and post-mortem examination got performed on the dead body of Amarjit Kaur. Accused were arrested in this case. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The matter was investigated. The site-plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. Earlier inquest proceedings had been conducted and post-mortem examination got performed on the dead body of Amarjit Kaur. Accused were arrested in this case. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, challan was prepared and filed in the Court. 6. On presentation of challan in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pathankot, he supplied copies of documents relied upon in the challan to the accused free of costs as provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Then finding that offence under Section 304-B IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pathankot vide his order dated 13.3.2002 committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur from where it was entrusted to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. 7. On receipt of the case, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, observing that charge for offence under Section 304-B IPC was disclosed against all the accused, they were charge-sheeted accordingly, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The case was then fixed for evidence of the prosecution. 8. During the course of its evidence, the prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses, namely, Harbhajan Singh, Record Keeper as PW1, Madan Lal, Deputy Stationer Supervisor as PW2, Dalip Chand, Driver as PW3, Constable Harjit Singh as PW4, Dr.Bhupinder Singh as PW5, Govinder Attri as PW6, Sansar Chand as PW7, Som Nath as PW8, Raj Kumar as PW9, Rajesh Kumar as PW10, DSP Bahadar Singh as PW11, SI Banarsi Dass as PW12, Rakesh Kumar, Photographer as PW13, Narinder Kumar Nahal, Guard as PW14 and Constable Balwant Singh as PW15. 9. With that the prosecution evidence stood closed. 10. Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing against such accused were put to them but they denied the allegations contending that they are innocent and have been falsely involved in this case. 11. 9. With that the prosecution evidence stood closed. 10. Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing against such accused were put to them but they denied the allegations contending that they are innocent and have been falsely involved in this case. 11. In addition to that, accused Ajay Kumar further took up a plea that he was happily married with Amarjit Kaur deceased, that their mutual relations were cordial and compatible; that a son was born to them; that Amarjit Kaur mostly lived with him at Jammu where he was posted as JE-I; that he has a friend by the name of Sunil, who lived in Hamachal Pradesh (near Kangra); that his marriage was fixed for 10.12.2001; that he and some other common friends of village Sarna Nehar had visited there; that he and his wife decided to attend that marriage; that his wife left Jammu for Sarna on 8.12.2001 to make preparation and for going to attend that marriage; that after staying with her sister at Pathankot enroute, she reached Sarna on the morning of 9.12.2001; that he reached Sarna on the morning of 10.12.2001 and contacted those common friends, who were also to move for that marriage; that at their behest, it was decided that winter was acute and they should not take their families with them as children were small, accordingly he told this to his wife and advised her not to accompany them as their own child too was small being just two years old; that she felt offended and wished to accompany him as she had already made preparation to go, however, he did not take her and they all friends from Sarna went there alone; that he returned from marriage on 11.12.2001 morning; that his wife was annoyed and she did not talk to him; that shortly after he discovered, she left the house in anger; that after some time in the afternoon that day while searching for her, he came to know that some woman had been run over by train at Pathankot Railway Station, where he went and saw her body with the police; that he informed her parents, who also reached there; that they all joined the police investigation and their statements were recorded. 12. 12. Further, accused Bachno Devi (since deceased), Ravinder and Shammo Devi took almost the similar plea as taken by accused Ajay Kumar. 13. During their defence, accused examined Visavjit as DW1, Yash Pal as DW2 and SI Ravinder Kumar as DW3. 14. With that the defence evidence got concluded. 15. After hearing arguments, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned supra , which left them aggrieved and they have filed CRA-S-1722-SB-2004. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants-accusedconvicts, learned Assistant Advocate General for the State of Punjab as well as learned counsel representing the petitioner/complainant besides going through the record. 17. During the course of appeal, appellant/accused No.2 Bachno Devi @ Bacho has expired, as such the appeal qua her stands abated. 18. The cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence are that the prosecution must prove its charge against the accused beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. Such onus to prove guilt of the accused to the hilt is stationary on the prosecution and it never shifts. The accused is not expected to prove his defence with some exactness and rigor, with which the prosecution is required to prove guilt of the accused. The accused is required to render only a reasonable and plausible explanation, which may cast a doubt in the mind about the truthfulness of the prosecution story. Furthermore, as per our jurisprudence, hundreds of guilty persons may go scot-free but even one innocent should not be punished. In light of these principles, if the present case is examined, then it transpires that the appeal qua accused/appellants Ravinder Pal @ Kala and his wife Shammo Devi deserves to be accepted, whereas it is not as regards appellant/accused Ajay Kumar. 19. In the instant case, there is delay of eight days in reporting the matter to the police. The incident had taken place on 11.12.2001, whereas the FIR was got registered on 19.12.2001. No reasonable or plausible explanation for such delay is coming forth. In a criminal case relating to commission of cognizable offence(s), the value of prompt lodging of FIR cannot be under estimated since it provides spontaneous and blemish free version of the incident and with passage of time, the element of truth in the story gets diluted and mischief of false implication after due deliberations and consultations can easily creep in. In a criminal case relating to commission of cognizable offence(s), the value of prompt lodging of FIR cannot be under estimated since it provides spontaneous and blemish free version of the incident and with passage of time, the element of truth in the story gets diluted and mischief of false implication after due deliberations and consultations can easily creep in. For the said reason, it is stated that delay is fatal to a criminal case unless properly explained. 20. Here in this case on coming to know about the death of his sister, Govinder Attri had come from Delhi, the place of his job to his parental place. While appearing as PW6, the complainant Govinder Attri has not stated anything as regards belated reporting of incident to the police. In his cross-examination, he stated that on 10.12.2001, he was not present in his village and Sansar Chand had told him of the story of 10.12.2001, when he had gone to the house of accused and he did so when he returned from Delhi. He further stated that on 11.12.2001 at about 9/10:00 p.m., he got a telephonic message regarding death of Amarjit Kaur then he had gone to Sarna and from Sarna, he went to his village Kota and remained there till 19.12.2001, when he had filed a complaint to the police. No reason has been explained as to what stopped him for reporting the matter to the police earlier. Therefore, there is no convincing or plausible explanation for delay in reporting the matter to police, which puts a question mark over the credibility of the prosecution story. The trial Court failed to properly appreciate this aspect of the case. 21. Secondly, parents of the deceased namely Chaman Lal father and Parkash Devi - mother while getting their statements recorded with the police had not stated anything against husband and his family members to the police. Explanation given in the FIR is that since they were in state of shock and nervous, therefore, they had not done so does not seem to be convincing. If in fact they had any grouse against the husband and in-laws family of the deceased, on coming to know about death of their daughter, they would certainly have informed the police in that regard but it was not so done. That also travels against the prosecution story. If in fact they had any grouse against the husband and in-laws family of the deceased, on coming to know about death of their daughter, they would certainly have informed the police in that regard but it was not so done. That also travels against the prosecution story. Neither father nor mother of the deceased, who would have been the natural witnesses with regard to the treatment being given to their daughter by her husband and in-laws family were examined. If any maltreatment or torture of deceased in connection with demand of dowry at the hands of her husband and in-laws family was there, she would have definitely informed her parents in that regard and they would have been the best witnesses with regard to such allegations. Non-examination of parents of the deceased goes to show that they were kept away since they would not have been able to render any satisfactory explanation. They are not saying anything against the husband and in-laws of the deceased to the police when they had gone to Sarna on coming to know about the death of the deceased. One more thing to be noticed is that in the FIR, the complainant Govinder Attri has levelled specific allegations with regard to Ajay Kumar having illicit relations with his brother's wife Shammo Devi but when his statement was recorded as PW6, he did not utter even a single word in that regard. Rather his main thrust was with regard to alleged maltreatment and harassment of Amarjit Kaur in connection with demand of dowry. That also travels against the prosecution story showing that it is not safe to rely upon the complainant, who could change his version as and when it suited him. Since Govinder Attri complainant had been working at Delhi, he could not possibly have the up to date information with regard to matrimonial life of Amarjit Kaur. He has stated that 3-4 days prior to Diwali festival, he along with Dev Raj, Raj Kumar, Som Nath along with Harpal Singh to the matrimonial home of Amarjit Kaur and had given a ring, Rs. 10,000/-, gold bracelet to Bachno. He stated that after giving those articles, they returned home and on 10.12.2001 his friend Sansar Chand had gone to Sarna in whose presence Ajay Kumar in drunkard condition had alleged abused Amarjit Kaur and the accused had assaulted her. 10,000/-, gold bracelet to Bachno. He stated that after giving those articles, they returned home and on 10.12.2001 his friend Sansar Chand had gone to Sarna in whose presence Ajay Kumar in drunkard condition had alleged abused Amarjit Kaur and the accused had assaulted her. This incident also does not come out to be believable since Sansar Chand had admittedly not informed the police in that regard. It seems that the incidents mentioned in the FIR and in the statement of PW6 Govinder Attri are created incidents so as to show the presence of witnesses. The deposition of PW6 Govinder Attri is not worthy of reliance. Similarly PW7 Sansar Chand also does not come out to be a truthful witness keeping in view the replies given by him in cross-examination. PW8 Som Nath and PW9 Raj Kumar in light of the replies given by them in the cross-examination do not come out to be reliable witnesses. PW11 DSP Bahadar Singh proved the inquest report Ex.PD and statement of Chhindao wife of Johla, Mam Singh ASI and that of Chaman Lal Ex.PD/1, Parkasho Devi Ex.PD/2. A perusal of statements Ex.PD/1 and Ex.PD/2 go to show that Chaman Lal and Parkasho Devi had stated that Amarjit Kaur had committed suicide due to some tension and they did not suspect any foul-play in her death. They further stated that Amarjit Kaur had very good relations with her husband and in-laws family. 22. Thus as far as involvement of appellant/accused Ravinder Pal @ Kala and Shammo Devi, the prosecution was unable to fasten criminal liability upon them conclusively and affirmatively but even then the trial Court convicted them. Therefore, their conviction and sentence cannot be sustained. 23. In that way CRA-S-1722-SB-2004 filed on behalf of appellants accused convicts Ravinder Pal @ Kala and Shammo Devi is allowed. 24. Whereas as regards appellant/accused/convict Ajay Kumar husband of the deceased, the judgment passed by the trial Court qua him does not call for any interference. The fact has to be kept in mind that Ajay Kumar and Amarjit Kaur got married on 16.2.1999, whereas Amarjit Kaur committed suicide on 11.12.2001 i.e. within less than three years of the marriage. A young married woman blessed with a son would not have ended her life without any rhyme or reason. Some sort of matrimonial discord was there. 25. A young married woman blessed with a son would not have ended her life without any rhyme or reason. Some sort of matrimonial discord was there. 25. Section 113-A of the Evidence Act deals with presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman, whereas Section 113-B of the Evidence Act deals with presumption as to dowry death. It provides that when the question is 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. 26. Thus from the facts of the case, the trial Court was justified in convicting the appellant/accused/convict Ajay Kumar. Therefore, conviction of appellant/accused/convict Ajay Kumar is upheld, whereas that of Ravinder Pal @ Kala and Shammo Devi is set aside and they are acquitted of the charge framed against them. 27. Keeping in view the gravity and seriousness of offence, no scope for reduction of sentence is made out. 28. Cra-S-1722-Sb-2004 filed on behalf of appellant/accused/convict Ajay Kumar stands dismissed. 29. Appellants accused convicts Ravinder Pal @ Kala and Shammo Devi are on bail. Bonds and sureties furnished by them are discharged. 30. Appellant accused convict Ajay Kumar is stated to be on bail granted to them by this Court while suspending his sentence. His bail is cancelled. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur is directed to issue arrest warrants to get him arrested so as to make him undergo the remaining sentence. 31. As far as, CRR-70-2005 is concerned, I do not find any material to enhance the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon Ajay Kumar. Therefore, CRR-70-2005 stands dismissed.