JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. 1. This Government Appeal, preferred under Section 378 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment & order dated 26.03.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. 1st, Dehradun in Special Sessions Trial No. 06 of 2009, whereby the said Court has acquitted the accused/respondents Dinesh Singh, Smt. Pushpa Devi, Km. Surabhi and Sachin from the charge of offences punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (10) of S.C./S.T. Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the lower Court record. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant, Goverdhan Lal, lodged the First Information Report on 23.05.2008 at Police Station Mussoorie, District Dehradun stating therein that, two years ago, the marriage of the daughter of the complainant was solemnized with Sachin S/o. Dinesh, resident of Choprasaar, Near Mussoorie Lake, Mussoorie. Out of the said wedlock, one female child was born. It is alleged in the said report that, after the marriage, Sachin and his family members used to harass his daughter by saying that she belongs to Scheduled Caste Community and the family members of Sachin usually used to demand dowry and they used to tell her that all the money of her father has been saved, immediately bring the money. It is reported in the F.I.R. that, on 18.05.2008 from 11 O' clock onwards, 18 missed calls were made by the daughter of the complainant on his mobile no. 9410934307. Thereafter, the complainant tried to talk to his daughter on phone; but, he could not contact his daughter. At around 03:00 - 04:00 on 19.05.2008, his daughter got burned; whereas, the family members of Sachin informed around 05:00 p.m. that the daughter of the complainant is suffering from fever and she is at Community Hospital. When the complainant reached at the Hospital, then he was informed by the doctor that Deeptika is 95% burned and is not in a position to talk. Due to extreme burning, Deeptika was referred from Mussoorie to Dehradun and then Dehradun to Delhi. On 20.05.2008 at around 10:30 a.m., Doctor of the Safdarjung Hospital declared Deeptika dead. When the complainant reached at the Hospital, then he was informed by the doctor that Deeptika is 95% burned and is not in a position to talk. Due to extreme burning, Deeptika was referred from Mussoorie to Dehradun and then Dehradun to Delhi. On 20.05.2008 at around 10:30 a.m., Doctor of the Safdarjung Hospital declared Deeptika dead. It is further reported in the F.I.R. that Deeptika was harassed by Sachin, his mother and his sister and from time to time casting indicating words were hurles to her and on 19.05.2008 they got away her life. In the report, the complainant requested to lodge an F.I.R. against the accused persons and to take legal action against them. On the basis of said report, Chik report was prepared and Case Crime no. 41 of 2008 was registered in respect of offence punishable under Section 304-B of I.P.C. and Section 3 (kha) of S.C./S.T. Act against the accused respondents. Investigation was taken up by Circle Officer G.C. Tamta, who interrogated the witnesses and started investigation. After completion of investigation, the said Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against the accused persons for their trial in respect of offence punishable under 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (10) of S.C./S.T. Act. 4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, on receipt of the chargesheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial on 04.08.2009. After hearing the parties on 24.10.2009, learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act)/F.T.C. Vth, Dehradun framed charge of offence punishable under 304-B read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (10) of S.C./S.T. Act., to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined P.W. 1 Goverdhan Lal (complainant), P.W. 2 Smt. Rajo Devi, P.W. 3 Smt. Uma Devi, P.W. 4 Meenu, P.W. 5 Nand Lal, P.W. 6 Constable Virendra Singh Rawat, P.W. 7 Dr. Sarvesh Tandon, P.W. 8 Smt. Renu Chauhan and P.W. 9 Dy. S.P. Girish Chandra Tamta. Thereafter, oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they alleged that the evidence adduced against them are false. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, opined that the accused persons are entitled for the benefit of doubt and are entitled for acquittal. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, opined that the accused persons are entitled for the benefit of doubt and are entitled for acquittal. With this finding, the trial Court acquitted the accused persons from the charge leveled against them. Aggrieved by the judgment & order dated 26.03.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. 1st, Dehradun in Special Sessions Trial No. 06 of 2009, this Appeal is filed by the State against the order of acquittal before this Court. Thereafter, leave to appeal was granted and appeal was admitted and lower court record was summoned. 5. P.W. 1, Goverdhan Lal, in his testimony has stated that he belongs to Shilpkar Caste. His wife's name is Smt. Rajo Devi. His one daughter is Meenu Devi and another daughter was Deeptika. Deeptika had studied upto B.A. On seeing accused Sachin in the Court, he said that he is Sachin with whom his daughter got married in the year 2006. He stated that Sachin enticed her away. Where did they marry, he does not know. It was a love marriage. Parents of Sachin were not agreeable, as they belong to Rajput caste. They were studying in the College. They knew about the caste. It was not an arrange marriage. Sachin and his family were used to reside at Chopra House, near Mussoorie Lake. After marriage, Sachin was residing with his family at Chopra House. Out of this wedlock, Deeptika gave birth to a female child and now she is around 3 years old. He stated that sometimes his daughter used to visit at his home without informing her in-laws and used to tell him that her mother-in-law did not permit her to enter in the kitchen without taking the bath and used to tell her daughter that she is a Scheduled Caste and she has saved the money which was to be spent by her father on the marriage and also used to demand dowry of Rs.50,000/-. He stated that mother-in-law & sister-in-law of Deeptika and Sachin used to harass his daughter and they did not give food to her and also used to hurle caste indicating words. He stated that once Sachin also came to his house and demanded dowry of Rs.50,000/-. One day before the incident, 18 missed calls came on the phone of her daughter, who is alongwith him, namely, Meenu. He stated that once Sachin also came to his house and demanded dowry of Rs.50,000/-. One day before the incident, 18 missed calls came on the phone of her daughter, who is alongwith him, namely, Meenu. Since the mobile phone was on vibration mode, hence, she couldn't pick up the phone. Thereafter, on the next day, she came to know about the same. At around 4 O' clock on 19th someone came there to call him and told him that his daughter is suffering from fever and is admitted in Community Hospital, Mussoorie. Upon receipt of such information, he and his wife rushed to Mussoorie Community Hospital. When he and his wife reached at the Hospital, then they saw that Deeptika was brutally burnt and was not able to talk. Doctor informed them that she is 95% burnt. On asking by them that how she is burnt, she, by her finger, pointed out towards her mother-in-law; but, did not say anything from her mouth. Sachin and his parents were present there. Doctors referred her to C.M.I. Then, Deeptika was taken to C.M.I. Thereafter, C.M.I. personnel referred Deeptika to Safdarjung Hospital. Thereafter, she was taken to Delhi. On 20.05.2008, in Delhi, the doctors declared her dead. During the course of treatment, she succumbed to her injuries. He stated that he reported the said incident in the Police Station at Mussoorie. He proved the written report (Ext. 3Ka/2), which was scribed by him and was submitted in the Police Station. Report was read over to him, then he told that it was the report, which was typed on his averments and he proved his signatures, which is at Ext. Ka1. He also proved Ext. 9Ka/1 and Ext. 9Ka/2, the signatures of his daughter, namely, Deeptika. He stated that he has seen his daughter studying and he knows her signatures, which was exhibited as Ext. Ka2. On seeing Ext. 7Ka/2, he stated that these are the photographs of Sachin and Deeptika. Paper No. 10Ka/3, he proved his signatures and said that on getting pressurized by the accused he has given statement (Ext. Ka4). He stated that the accused did not inform him about the burning of his daughter. He stated that he had no information about the crimination of his daughter and the accused did not permit him to accompany in the last rites of his daughter. Ka4). He stated that the accused did not inform him about the burning of his daughter. He stated that he had no information about the crimination of his daughter and the accused did not permit him to accompany in the last rites of his daughter. Due to mental stress and due to treatment of his daughter, he couldn't lodge the F.I.R. in time. 6. P.W. 2 Rajo Devi, in her testimony, has stated that Deeptika was her younger daughter. Meenu is her elder daughter. Deeptika has studied upto B.A. It was a love marriage between Deeptika and Sachin. At the time when Deeptika got married, she was 21 years old. She stated that Sachin present in the Court is of superior caste. She stated that she informed Sachin and his family members that they belongs to Scheduled Caste community and Sachin and his family members belongs to superior caste, hence, do not marry. Even on our denial, they solemnized marriage with each other. After marriage, Deeptika resided at Sachin's home. After marriage, Deeptika twice or thrice visited their house and informed them that her in-laws are harassing her on the pretext of getting dowry and are demanding dowry of Rs.50,000/-. They did not permit her to enter in the kitchen without taking the bath and used to say that she is a Scheduled Caste and enter in the kitchen after taking bath. Even they did not give her food. Whenever her mother-in-law used to go outside her home, she used to lock the kitchen, then, her daughter used to borrow food from the neighbours. She stated that once Sachin came there and asked for Rs.15,000/-. She stated that 2 years will complete in the month of May, when her daughter was burned. On 18.05.2008, 18 missed calls of her daughter came, who was trying to say something, which was seen by them in the morning, as the phone was not picked up by her daughter. At around 4 O' clock on 19th she got burnt and she was taken to the Hospital. Landlord of Sachin came to their house on his vehicle and said that her daughter is seriously ill. Come to see her, as she is very critical and she intends to meet them. Thereafter, she, her daughter, namely, Meenu and her husband rushed to the Community Hospital. She saw her daughter. She was lying. Landlord of Sachin came to their house on his vehicle and said that her daughter is seriously ill. Come to see her, as she is very critical and she intends to meet them. Thereafter, she, her daughter, namely, Meenu and her husband rushed to the Community Hospital. She saw her daughter. She was lying. Nurse was getting out the pieces of skin from her body and she was not able to speak. Sachin and his family members were there. She pointed out towards Sachin and his family members that they have burnt her. Doctors suggested to take her to Dehradun. Thereafter, she was taken to Dehradun. There, on the suggestion of the doctors, she was taken to Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi. Sachin and his family members were also there. On 20.05.2008, her daughter, during treatment, succumbed to her injuries. 7. P.W. 3 Uma Devi, on oath, has stated that, at present, Sachin and his family members, who were present in the Court, are her tenants. They are their tenants since 5 years. He was having three rooms, one kitchen and one store. Father of Sachin is working in the Gas Agency of Garhwal Mandal. They are Rajputs. Sachin has two brothers, mother, father and one sister. Name of the spouse of Sachin was Deeptika. She did not know of which caste his wife belongs to and where is his in-laws house. Sachin and his wife were having cordial relations with each other. When the incident regarding burning of Deeptika took place, at that time, she was at home itself. She went at the spot after 10 minutes. It is wrong to say that mother-in-law and daughter-in-law used to quarrel. 8. P.W. 4 Meenu has stated on oath that Deeptika was her younger sister. She was studying in B.A. When she was studying in B.A., Sachin was also studying with her. When they were studying in the College, they solemnized love marriage with each other. Sachin told them that he belongs to superior caste and they also informed Sachin that they belongs to Scheduled Caste community; but, despite this fact, they solemnized marriage. She stated that they belong to Shilpkar community and this is the original certificate of Deeptika regarding Shilpkar community, photocopy of which is annexed as Ext. 15Ka. Original of which, she was submitting on that day, which is Ext. 1. It was not an arranged marriage. She stated that they belong to Shilpkar community and this is the original certificate of Deeptika regarding Shilpkar community, photocopy of which is annexed as Ext. 15Ka. Original of which, she was submitting on that day, which is Ext. 1. It was not an arranged marriage. She does not know where the marriage was solemnized. Marriage was solemnized in the year 2006. At that time, her age was approximately 20 years. After marriage, Deeptika started living in Sachin's home. Sachin's home is near Kyar Kuli Lake, which is a rented accommodation. After marriage, Deeptika used to visit their home occasionally. She used to say that they harasses her, did not give her food, and did not give warm water to take bath. Being Scheduled Caste, Rs. 50,000/- was demanded as dowry. Some times Sachin alongwith Deeptika visited their home. She stated that her sister used to say that her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and Sachin themselves demanded dowry and harassed her. They did not permit her to enter into their house, as she belongs to said caste. She stated that it is the incident of 18.05.2008. In the night at his mobile no. 9410934307, 18-19 missed calls came. Phone was on vibration mode, hence, conversation couldn't take place. She came to know about the same in the morning. She tried to make several calls in the morning; but, couldn't connect. That calls were made from Sachin's phone. On the said day i.e. 19.05.2008 at around 05:00 p.m., landlord of Sachin came to their home and said that your daughter is suffering from fever and she is admitted in the Community Hospital. She stated that she, her mother and her father went to the Hospital in order to meet her sister. She was totally burnt and was not able to talk. Family members of Sachin were standing there. She was pointing towards her mother-in-law and was not able to talk. Doctor told them that she was 95% burnt, take her to Dehradun. Then Deeptika was taken to Dehradun. Thereafter, she was taken to Delhi. On 20.05.2008 in Delhi, Deeptika succumbed to her injuries. She stated that the report of the said incident, which is (Ext. A-1), was lodged by her father, in which signature of her father is there. On seeing Ext. 7Ka/2, she said that the photograph is of her sister Deeptika and Sachin. On seeing paper no. Ext. Ka2 and Ext. On 20.05.2008 in Delhi, Deeptika succumbed to her injuries. She stated that the report of the said incident, which is (Ext. A-1), was lodged by her father, in which signature of her father is there. On seeing Ext. 7Ka/2, she said that the photograph is of her sister Deeptika and Sachin. On seeing paper no. Ext. Ka2 and Ext. Ka3, she said that these are stamp papers of Rs. 10-10, which was recovered by them from the drawer at the home of Sachin. She stated that she was witness to Recovery Memo Ext. 7Ka/1. She stated that, on 24.05.2008, from the kitchen, Police recovered a five litre bottle, a mug, from which smell of kerosene oil was coming out. There were four gas cylinders in the kitchen. She stated that police sealed the suit wore by her sister in which hairs of her sister were sticked, a blanket and burnt clothes in a white cloth. Recovery memo was prepared on the spot. She proved the Exts. which were prepared in her presence and on whom her signatures were there. 9. P.W. 5 Nand Lal stated on oath that, on 24.05.2008, he went with the C.O. City and police personnel at the spot. He was accompanied with Km. Meenu and Ramesh Bharti. Police recovered a coloured photograph alongwith two stamp papers of Rs. 10-10 from the drawer of the Sachin's room and, on seeing the said photograph, she said that it is Sachin's and Deeptika's photograph. When he went to the home, a bottle in which 300 ml. kerosene oil was there and one broken mug was recovered. Smell of kerosene oil was coming from both of them. One filled gas cylinder was in the kitchen. Kitchen was neat and clean and was washed with the intention that no body will know about the incident. He did not see any stove in the kitchen. There was a blanket, clothes on which hairs were sticked and on it burnt clothes of deceased alongwith skin was found. Police recovered all the aforesaid items and sealed them in a white cloth. He proved Ext. Ka6, in which his signatures are there. 10. P.W. 6 Virendra Singh Rawat stated on oath that, on 23.05.2008, he was posted on the post of Constable Clerk at Police Station Mussoorie, District Dehradun. He prepared the Chik Report and made entry in the G.D. (Ex. 6A/2). He proved Ext. Ka6, in which his signatures are there. 10. P.W. 6 Virendra Singh Rawat stated on oath that, on 23.05.2008, he was posted on the post of Constable Clerk at Police Station Mussoorie, District Dehradun. He prepared the Chik Report and made entry in the G.D. (Ex. 6A/2). He proved Chik F.I.R. (Ex-Ka1). 11. P.W. 7 Dr. Sarvesh Tandon has stated on oath that, being the Senior Medical Officer at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, conducted postmortem of the deceased, namely, Deeptika. 12. P.W. 8 Smt. Renu has stated on oath that deceased was her younger sister. They are Shilpkar, which is a Scheduled Caste Community. Deeptika by her own sweet will got married with Sachin. Sachin belongs to higher caste. After marriage, she met with Deeptika 2-3 times. She told her that her in-laws harasses her and hurles caste indicating words and did not permit her to enter into the kitchen, as she belongs to lower caste. They also used to demand dowry and also used to threaten her. Her husband also used to harass her and have sent her 1-2 times to her maternal house in order to bring money. Her sister was killed by burning. On the day of incident, mother-in-law, sister-in-law of Deeptika and her husband were at home. 13. P.W. 9 Dy. S.P. Girish Chandra Tamta (Investigating Officer), in his testimony has stated that the investigation of the instant case was entrusted to him. He investigated the matter and submitted charge sheet against the respondents. 14. Learned Assistant Government Advocate submitted that the complainant Govardhan Lal submitted a written report to the In-charge Kotwali Mussoorie with the contents that the marriage of his daughter Deeptika was solemnized two years ago with Sachin (respondent no. 4) and, out of this wedlock, one male baby was born and after the marriage the accused/respondents started harassing and torturing the daughter of complainant Deeptika for the demand of dowry and also by using the word that she belongs to schedule caste category. He further submitted that, on 18.05.2008, the daughter of complainant but he could not attend the mobile phone as his mobile phone was on silent mode. He submitted that it was the time his daughter was tortured. She was burnt and due to burning she died. Thus, the accused/respondents have committed murder of his daughter. 15. He further submitted that, on 18.05.2008, the daughter of complainant but he could not attend the mobile phone as his mobile phone was on silent mode. He submitted that it was the time his daughter was tortured. She was burnt and due to burning she died. Thus, the accused/respondents have committed murder of his daughter. 15. Learned Assistant Government Advocate further submitted that it is an admitted case that deceased died unnatural death, as she got 95% burn injuries. She was in the custody of the respondents. Kerosene oil was poured on her head. Therefore, inference would be drawn against the respondents. He further submitted that trial Court erred by relying on the statement of the complainant given under Section 164 Cr.P.C. whereas it should have relied on the statement given by him before the Courts. 16. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the learned Court below has correctly appreciated the entire evidence and material available on record and has rightly acquitted the respondents. He submitted that statement given by the complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. tells the real story in which he has clearly stated that he has no supervision on anybody. He further submitted that there is nothing on record which supports the case of the prosecution and the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents. 17. We have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record. 18. We find that in the first information report, the complainant, who happens to the father of the deceased, has written that on 18.05.2008 from 11:00 hours onwards, 18 missed calls were made by his daughter. In his statement before the Court also, he repeated the same thing. He stated that since the same was kept under silent mode; therefore, he could not know about the missed calls and he could know about the same on 19.05.2008. There is nothing on record, which suggests that Investigating Officer tried to find out that the deceased daughter of the complainant actually tried to contact the complainant on 18 times on 18.05.2008. The Investigating Officer, should have collected the details of phone calls of both the mobile numbers one of the mother of the deceased and other father (complainant) of the deceased. The Investigating Officer, should have collected the details of phone calls of both the mobile numbers one of the mother of the deceased and other father (complainant) of the deceased. This evidence could have been a crucial evidence for connecting the chain of evidence and could have supported the version of the complainant that his daughter was being tortured at that time. We also find that the deceased died next day and, during that period, no effort was made for taking her dying declaration. None of the doctors who treated the deceased at Mussoorie then Dehradun and again at Delhi were examined. Only the statement of the doctor, who conducted the postmortem was produced. The doctor, who treated the deceased at Mussoorie hospital, would have been the best person who know that what the deceased told about the incident. Similarly, the doctor at Dehradun hospital would have also been relevant for this purpose. But this was not done. In fact, the investigation was not conducted properly. We further find that in his statement the P.W. 1 father of the deceased has stated that the marriage between respondent no. 4 and his daughter was a love marriage. He has not stated that, at the time of marriage, any demand of dowry was made. Though, in his statement, he stated that dowry was demanded by the mother-in-law of the deceased and also by the husband of the deceased. But, he has also stated that his daughter was tortured, as she was Scheduled Caste and her mother-in-law used to behave badly with her. 19. We do not find any supportive evidence, which could prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty before her death for the purpose of dowry. Moreover, it is settled law that two views are possible. In that event, view taken by the trial Court should not be disturbed in normal circumstances. Further, in the matter of acquittal, the High Court, while reversing the judgment of trial Court, should give the cogent reason for reversing the finding and for convicting the accused. We do not find any such evidence on record on which basis the accused can be held guilty under Section 304-B read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (10) of S.C./S.T. Act. 20. In the result, appeal fails and is dismissed. 21. We do not find any such evidence on record on which basis the accused can be held guilty under Section 304-B read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (10) of S.C./S.T. Act. 20. In the result, appeal fails and is dismissed. 21. Let the lower Court's record along with the copy of this judgment be forwarded to the learned trial Court for information.