JUDGMENT : GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, J. 1. The instant criminal leave to appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the impugned judgment dated 01.04.2015 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Jhunjhunu, in Sessions Case No.175/2013 (111/13) whereby accused respondent has been acquitted of the charges framed against him under Sections 498A, 304B in the alternate under section 302 IPC. 2. In brief the factual matrix of the case is that complainant Vimla Devi w/o Late Mohan Lal, resident of Lilki, Police Station Rajgarh, District Churu submitted a written report (Ex.P3) to the S.H.O., Police Station Bagad to the effect that she is resident of Lilki, Police Station Rajgarh, District Churu. She has two daughters. The marriage of his daughter Poonam was solemnized with Sanjay, who is resident of Village Lamba Gothda and marriage of her younger daughter Pooja was solemnized with Pawan. Marriage of her both the daughters was solemnized two years ago. After sometime of the marriage, mother-in-law, father-in-law Guljari, Saroj (nanad) and Sanjay (Jeth) of her daughter in conspiracy committed the murder of her daughter on 12-13/6/2013 for demand of dowry. The neighbourers gave information about the alleged incident. No postmortem of the dead body of Pooja was conducted. Thus, aforesaid five culprits be arrested immediately without any delay and against them stern action be taken. 3. On the basis of aforesaid written report (Ex.P3), an F.I.R. No. 78/2013 (Ex.P9) for the offence under Sections 498A and 304B IPC was registered at Police Station Bagad, District Jhunjhunu. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused respondent under sections 498A, 304B IPC in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu committed the matter to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu who transferred the case to the Court of learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Jhunjhunu (for short 'the learned trial court'). 4. Learned trial court after hearing the arguments of both the parties, framed the charges against the accused respondent for the offences under Sections 498A, 304B in the alternate under section 302 IPC and explained him, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. 5. To substantiate the charges, prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents. Learned trial court after hearing the arguments of both the parties, framed the charges against the accused respondent for the offences under Sections 498A, 304B in the alternate under section 302 IPC and explained him, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. 5. To substantiate the charges, prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 was recorded. In defence, the accused respondent got examined receipt of Forensic Science Laboratory as Ex.D1. 6. Learned trial court after hearing the final arguments of both the parties, acquitted the accused respondent for the charges levelled against them vide impugned judgment dated 01.04.2015. 7. Ms. Soniya Shandaliya, learned Public Prosecutor argued that the learned trial court has erred in not considering the statements of prosecution witnesses by which the offences against the accused respondent are well proved but the learned trial court acquitted the accused respondent from the charges leveled against him which is based on wrong appreciation of evidence. The learned trial court has erred in not relying on the fact that the deceased Pooja had died within three years from the date of her marriage and she died in her in-laws house which is proved from the evidence on record and her death was unnatural one. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that the learned trial court erred in not relying upon the statement of Vimla Devi (PW2), who deposed that her daughter Pooja was murdered by her husband Pawan Kumar by giving her poison. The offence of cruelty, demand of dowry and attempt to murder was fully proved but the learned trial court has over-looked the real aspect of the case in view of the limitations of the wife in Indian Culture and social obligations. Learned Public Prosecutor further argued that the learned trial court has erred in not relying on the statement of Dr. Jugal Singh (PW9) by whom autopsy on the dead body of deceased Pooja was conducted. Dr. Jugal Singh (PW9) in his statement deposed that the death of the deceased was an unnatural one. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor further argued that the learned trial court has erred in not relying on the statement of Dr. Jugal Singh (PW9) by whom autopsy on the dead body of deceased Pooja was conducted. Dr. Jugal Singh (PW9) in his statement deposed that the death of the deceased was an unnatural one. 8. Heard learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned judgment and statements of prosecution witnesses and different exhibits, we find that star witnesses of the prosecution namely; Bajrang (PW3), Lichma (PW4), Raju (PW5), Mahavir (PW6), Poonam (PW7) have not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. 9. With regard to testimony of related witnesses Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 Supreme Court Cases 116 has held as under:- "48. Before discussing the evidence of the witnesses we might mention a few preliminary remarks against the background of which the oral statements are to be considered. All persons to whom the oral statements are said to have been made by Manju when she visited Beed for the last time, are close relatives and friends of the deceased. In view of the close relationship and affection any person in the position of the witness would naturally have a tendency to exaggerate or add facts which may not have been stated to them at all. Not that is done consciously but even unconsciously the love and affection for the deceased would create a psychological hatred against the supposed murderer and, therefore, the court has to examine such evidence with very great care and caution. Even if the witnesses were speaking a part of the truth or perhaps the whole of it, they would be guided by a spirit of revenge or nemesis against the accused person and in this process certain facts which may not or could not have been stated may be imagined to have been stated unconsciously by the witnesses in order to see that the offender is punished. This is human psychology and no one can help it." 10. Vikas Kumar (PW1) deposed that on 16.6.2013 he was posted as Constable at Police Station Bagad and on that day Circle Officer arrested Pawan Kumar (accused respondent). Arrest memo is Ex.P1 and on A to B part there bears his signatures. This is human psychology and no one can help it." 10. Vikas Kumar (PW1) deposed that on 16.6.2013 he was posted as Constable at Police Station Bagad and on that day Circle Officer arrested Pawan Kumar (accused respondent). Arrest memo is Ex.P1 and on A to B part there bears his signatures. Vimla (PW2) who is complainant and mother of the deceased Pooja in examination-in-chief reiterated the averments made in the written report (Ex.P3). This witness in her cross-examination deposed that she did not say about demand of dowry in her statement but she told about demand of motor-cycle. Bajrang (PW2) deposed that Guljari Lal (father of accused respondent) is his uncle. He has three sons. Marriage of Sanjay was solemnized with Poonam and marriage of Pawan was solemnized with Pooja, both residents of Leelki. Pooja and Poonam are real sisters. This witness further deposed that Pooja died 15-16 months ago due to heart attack. His statement was not recorded by the police. This witness did not support the prosecution story and turned hostile. Lichma (PW4) in examination-in-chief deposed that her Jeth Mohan Lal had four daughters, out of them one had died and three are alive. The daughter who died, her marriage was solemnized with Pawan three years ago. This witness further deposed that he did not hear anything adverse that in-laws of Pooja used to treat her with cruelty for demand of dowry. Raju (PW4), brother of Mohan Lal, in examination-in-chief deposed that Mohan Lal is his brother. Mohanlal had four daughters, out of them marriage of two daughters were solemnized at Thelasar and two at Gothda. Marriage of one daughter was solemnized with Pawan and another with Sanjay. The daughter who was married with Pawan had died three years ago. In the marriage all the articles were given. How Pooja died, he does not know. This witness further deposed that he never heard anything adverse and about the demand of dowry. This witness did not support the prosecution story and turned hostile. In cross-examination, this witness deposed that the accused who is present in the Court never made any demand of dowry. On Ex.P3, Ex.P4 and Ex.P13, his signatures were taken on blank papers. Mahaveer (PW6) in examination-in-chief deposed that Mohan Lal is his younger brother. This witness deposed that Pooja died at her in-laws house 1- years ago and how she died, he is not aware. On Ex.P3, Ex.P4 and Ex.P13, his signatures were taken on blank papers. Mahaveer (PW6) in examination-in-chief deposed that Mohan Lal is his younger brother. This witness deposed that Pooja died at her in-laws house 1- years ago and how she died, he is not aware. This witness further deposed that Pooja never made complaint about the in-laws. This witness did not support the prosecution story and turned hostile. This witness in cross-examination deposed that the in-laws of Pooja and Poonam never made any demand of dowry. This witness admitted that after the marriage neither any demand of dowry was made by the in-laws of Pooja nor Pooja was ill-treated by her husband or her in-laws. Poonam (PW7), sister of deposed that Pooja slept in the night after taking dinner and when she was taken care in the day time then she was found dead. Her sister Pooja was issueless. This witness further deposed that her brother-in-law (devar) never troubled her sister. This witness did not support the prosecution story and turned hostile. This witness in cross-examination deposed that Pawan, Sanjay and her in-laws never made demand of dowry and Pooja died due to heart attack. Pooja and Pawan never quarreled with each other in her presence. 11. Surendra Dixit (PW8) deposed that in the year 2013 he was posted as C.O., Jhunjhunu. This witness deposed that he investigated into the matter and on the basis of material made available to him during the course of investigation, he submitted charge-sheet in the court concerned. 12. Dr. Jug Lal Singh (PW09) deposed that on 14.05.2013 he was posted in Government Community Health Center, Bagad. This witness deposed that he conducted autopsy (Ex.P18) on the dead body of the deceased. This witness deposed that the death occurred 12-hours and cause of death disclosed after FSL report. The FSL report is Ex.P17, relevant portion of which is reproduced here-in-below:- "On chemical examination, portions of viscera (1-3) from three packets marked C,A and B respectively gave positive tests for the presence of Aluminium phosphide and gave negative test for other metallic poisons., ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquillizers and insecticides." 13. In view of above, offence under section 302 IPC is not made out and from the statements of prosecution witnesses and material on record, it is not proved that accused committed the murder of Pooja. 14. In view of above, offence under section 302 IPC is not made out and from the statements of prosecution witnesses and material on record, it is not proved that accused committed the murder of Pooja. 14. So far as charge against the accused respondents for offence under sections 304B and 498A IPC is concerned, from the statements of material witnesses of the prosecution it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove that soon before the death of deceased Neetu, the accused respondents subjected her to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry. 15. As per the definition of "Dowry Death" in Section 304B IPC and the wording in the presumptive section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, one of the essential ingredients amongst others, in both the provisions is that the woman concerned must have been "soon before her death subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand of dowry". Presumption under section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act is a presumption of law. On proof of the essentials mentioned therein, it becomes obligatory on the Court to raise a presumption that accused caused the dowry death. 16. The evidence of Vimla (PW2), mother of the deceased cannot be treated as unimpeachable and uncontroversial evidence for the purpose of presumption under section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act and looking to the inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses we are of the opinion that the prosecution has not shown/presented and or proved even by preponderance of probabilities that the deceased has been treated with cruelty emanating from or founded on dowry demands. Thus the prosecution has failed to prove charges against the accused respondent for the offence under sections 498A, 304B in the alternate under section 302 IPC. 17. In the aforesaid scenario, we are of the considered view that prosecution has not succeeded in establishing its case beyond contours of reasonable doubt, so we do not find any reason to disturb the findings of the trial court. Therefore, the criminal leave to appeal filed by the State against acquittal is devoid of any merit, hence the same is dismissed.