JUDGMENT : 1. The instant appeal has been filed by the State under Section 477 Cr. P.C. assailing the judgment of acquittal dated 30th October, 2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Reasi in the case arising out of FIR No. 54/1997 registered at Police Station, Katra against the respondents for commission of offence under Section 302/34 RPC. 2. We have heard Mr. Raman Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Rajnish Oswal, who has also filed his written submissions. 3. It appears that on 2nd May, 1997, a missing report was lodged by respondent No. 1-Inder Raj with Police Station, Katra with regard to his daughter-in-law, namely, Ms. Vandana being missing. In the report it was disclosed that he had come for Darshan to Holy Shrine of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi along with his family members on 30th April, 1997; they reached Katra in the evening and on the next date after having Darshan, they returned from Bhawan towards Katra. Enroute, near Ardh Kuwari, his daughter-in-law Smt. Vandana, who was walking slowly, did not turn up; that the rest of the family was waiting for her at Ban Ganga till evening; that when despite search she could not be traced and she had disappeared after Ardh Kuwari, a request was made by the respondent No. 1-Inder Raj with the police for effecting search for her. 4. On the very next day i.e. 3rd May, 1997, Head Constable Pyara Singh (PW-12) found the dead body of deceased Vandana near ‘Alok Morh’ downside the road at a distance of 100 feet therefrom. 5. In view of the fact that the death appeared to be an unnatural death, inquest proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were got conducted by Sh. Rakesh Bhutial, S.I. and thereafter autopsy of the dead body was conducted. During investigation, the statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 175 Cr. P.C. 6. It appears that during investigation, on 7th May, 1997, Sh. Ashwani Kumar (PW-2), brother of the deceased Vandana lodged a report with the Police Station, Katra to the effect that his sister Rajni alias Ranu was married with Parvesh Kumar on 7th December, 1996 and alleged handing over of valuable articles in dowry and a car. P.C. 6. It appears that during investigation, on 7th May, 1997, Sh. Ashwani Kumar (PW-2), brother of the deceased Vandana lodged a report with the Police Station, Katra to the effect that his sister Rajni alias Ranu was married with Parvesh Kumar on 7th December, 1996 and alleged handing over of valuable articles in dowry and a car. Sh Ashwani Kumar alleged that her in-laws were harassing her and were not allowing her to use the dowry items for the reason that the same had to be used in the marriage of Kiran, respondent No. 4, sister of Parvesh Kumar and that complaints in this regard were conveyed by Vandana from Jallandhar STD phone. Some other allegations were also made by deceased Vandana’s brother. Ashwani Kumar also claimed that Vandana had informed him that she was being taken to Shri Mata Vaishno Devi against her will. It was also stated that, when Ashwani Kumar learnt about the recovery of the dead body of Vandana on 3rd May, 1997, they became suspicious that either she had committed suicide because of the mal-treatment by her in-laws or has been done away with by them. 7. In view of the above complaint, the police of Police Station, Katra registered FIR No. 54/1997 for commission of an offence under Section 306 RPC. 8. It appears that during investigation, on 28th of May, 1997, the statement of one Kanta Rani (PW-9), who was also accompanying the family of Inder Raj for Darshan, was recorded under Section 175 Cr. P.C. wherein she alleged that she had seen respondent No. 4-Kiran (sister of Parvesh Kumar) give a push to Vandana with her both hands, as a result of which she rolled down from the hill. 9. Based on the statement given by Kanta Rani, on 28th May, 1997, the police substituted the offence in the FIR as an offence under Section 302 RPC and arrested Sh. Inder Raj-respondent No. 1, his son Parvesh Kumar-respondent No. 2 (husband of deceased Vandana), his wife Prem Rani-respondent No. 3 and his daughter-Kiran Rani-respondent No. 4 therein (all of whom are arrayed as respondents herein). 10. During investigation, on 4th June, 1997, the statement of Smt. Kanta Rani-PW-9 was recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. by Sh. V.C. Koul, the then JMIC. 11. 10. During investigation, on 4th June, 1997, the statement of Smt. Kanta Rani-PW-9 was recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. by Sh. V.C. Koul, the then JMIC. 11. On completion of the investigation, the challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhampur, who committed the same for trial on 29th July, 1997 to the Court of Sessions Judge, Reasi. 12. Charges were framed against the respondents on 17th September, 1997 for commission of offence under Section 302/34 RPC. The respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 13. During trial, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses in support of the charges which had been levelled against the accused persons. The main witnesses whose testimony the prosecution was relying upon included Ashwani Kumar the brother of the deceased as PW-2; Renu, the sister of the deceased as PW-3; Nirmal, mother of the deceased as PW-4 and Baldev Kumar, the father of the deceased as PW-6. The prosecution also recorded evidence of Kanta Devi-PW-9 as an eye witness. 14. In addition, testimony of formal witnesses, which included Dr. Vijay, doctor who conducted the Postmortem as PW-7 and Sh. V.C. Koul, JMIC, who recorded the statement of PW-9 under Section 164-A Cr. P.C. as PW-10 and some other witnesses was led. 15. The learned trial Court put the incriminating circumstances in the evidence against the accused persons, to them under Section 342 Cr.P.C. The respondents disputed the correctness of such evidence which were put to them. 16. Additionally, defence evidence was also led by the respondents, who examined Sh. Khairati Lal as DW-1, who had acted as mediator in marriage of Parvesh Kumar-respondent No. 2 with the deceased-Vandana in support of the defence of the respondents to the effect that there was no dowry demand or mal-treatment inflicted on Vandana by them. This witness had stated that it was the parents of the deceased who were known to him. He categorically testified that the accused never demanded any dowry nor any car in dowry. It was in his evidence that the accused had their own factory. The witness categorically testified that the family of the deceased never disclosed to him about any mal-treatment meted out to the deceased by the accused persons. This witness also stated that the relatives of the deceased had all taken part in Vandana’s cremation (conducted by her husband and in-laws). The witness categorically testified that the family of the deceased never disclosed to him about any mal-treatment meted out to the deceased by the accused persons. This witness also stated that the relatives of the deceased had all taken part in Vandana’s cremation (conducted by her husband and in-laws). At that time Vandana’s relatives had not made any complaint or allegation against the respondents. No protest was made by them. This witness also disclosed that Vandana’s relatives never made any complaint that she had been mal-treated by her in-laws at any point of time and that even no suspicion with regard to Vandana’s death had been expressed to this witness. 17. The other witness examined in defence by the respondents was Ramesh Chand (DW-2), who had disclosed that one of his daughters was married with the elder son of Inder Raj-respondent No. 1 (i.e. the elder brother of Parvesh Kumar). The witness had stated that his daughter was living happily in the house of the respondents and accused persons had never mal-treated her for demand of dowry nor his son-in-law demanded any dowry from him. The witness further stated that the accused persons have their own factory at Jallandhar. 18. After consideration of the entirety of the evidence and the submissions made by the parties, the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 30th October, 2004 finding therein that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish the charge against the respondents. This judgment has been assailed before us by the State by way of the present appeal submitting that the judgment is contrary to the evidence which was placed before the trial Court and that the learned trial Judge had failed to appreciate the same in correct perspective. 19. We have considered the submissions of Mr. Raman Sharma, learned Dy. AG and Mr. Rajnish Oswal, learned counsel for the respondents, who have carefully taken us to the available record. 20. We find that the trial Court has found that the case set up by the prosecution deserves to be disbelieved, inter-alia, for the reason that in the present case there was un-explained and unreasonable delay in making of the complaint by the relatives of the deceased-Vandana. 21. The trial court has also dealt at length on the testimony of Kanta Rani, PW-9, who was produced as the sole eye witness in support of the case. 21. The trial court has also dealt at length on the testimony of Kanta Rani, PW-9, who was produced as the sole eye witness in support of the case. We find from the record that this witness, has in her testimony stated that the police had recorded her statements under duress. The witness has stated that she was kept in custody for 22 days and that she was compelled to make her testimony in order to secure her release from the police custody. This is supported by the fact that the body of the deceased was found on 3rd May, 1997 while Kanta Rani surfaces in the record only in June, 1997. 22. In this background, the learned Trial Judge has held that the prosecution relied on planted witnesses whose testimony could not be relied upon to support conviction of the respondents. This finding is clearly supported by the material on record led during trial. 23. Further more, the prosecution led no evidence during trial to support the charge of murder against any of the accused persons/respondents. 24. The Trial Court has also noted the gross delay in recording the statement of witnesses who attempted to support culpability of the respondents. We find no reason to disagree with the findings of the learned trial Judge that this delay, infact, casts grave suspicion regarding truthfulness of the witnesses. In this regard, we find that deceased Vandana was missing from 30th April, 1997; the missing report was lodged on 2nd May, 1997 while dead body was found on 3rd May, 1997. 25. It has even come on record that relatives of deceased Vandana participated in her cremation without making any kind of grievance or complaint against the manner in which the in-laws of deceased Vandana had treated her during her life time. In the cremation of the deceased, Khairati Lal (DW-1), who had mediated the marriage between Parvesh Kumar and deceased Vandana, was also present. There was also no suggestion by Vandnana’s relatives that she had been taken to the Shrine of Mata Vaishno Devi against her will. 26. It was only long thereafter on 7th May, 1997 Ashwani Kumar (PW-2) sought to make allegations the afore noted against the respondents resulting in registration of FIR No. 54/1997 under Section 306 RPC. There was also no suggestion by Vandnana’s relatives that she had been taken to the Shrine of Mata Vaishno Devi against her will. 26. It was only long thereafter on 7th May, 1997 Ashwani Kumar (PW-2) sought to make allegations the afore noted against the respondents resulting in registration of FIR No. 54/1997 under Section 306 RPC. Twenty two days thereafter, it appears that on the premise of a statement propounded to have been made by Kanta Rani (PW-9), the police substituted Section 302 for Section 306 RPC in the case which had been registered. 27. So far as testimony of Naveen Kumar (PW-1) and Vijay Kumar (PW-5), who were sought to be examined as independent witnesses to support the allegations of dowry demand and harassment are concerned, the Trial Court has carefully analyzed their oral testimony and found that these witnesses had not explained their association or acquaintance with the respondents. It has further been observed that these witnesses made allegations without any substance which were unworthy of any credence. Nothing has been pointed out which would merit a different finding. 28. The examination of totality of the evidence led by the prosecution would show that the prosecution had miserably failed to bring home the charge with which the respondents had been charged. 29. Viewed thus, we are of the considered opinion that the acquittal of respondents is well-merited and needs no interference, as the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused or bring any incriminating circumstance, much less such evidence that would connect the respondents with the commission of alleged offences punishable under Sections 302/34 34 RPC. 30. The Trial Court has recorded findings, which are based on an elaborate appreciation of evidence available on record. It is well settled in law that this Court while hearing an acquittal appeal can re-appreciate the evidence, however, it should not interfere with the order of acquittal if the view taken by the Trial Court is a reasonable view of the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the Trial Court are not manifestly erroneous, contrary to the evidence on record on perverse. Ram Swaroop and Others vs. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 13 SCC 134, Vijay Kumar vs. State by Inspector General, (2009) 12 SCC 629 and Upendra Pradhan vs. State of Orissa, (2015) 11 SCC 124 . 31. Ram Swaroop and Others vs. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 13 SCC 134, Vijay Kumar vs. State by Inspector General, (2009) 12 SCC 629 and Upendra Pradhan vs. State of Orissa, (2015) 11 SCC 124 . 31. From a perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court, we find that the findings recorded by the Trial Court can neither be termed as perverse, contrary to the evidence or erroneous. Therefore, no case for interference in this acquittal appeal is made out. 32. In view of the above, we see no reason to disagree with the findings of the Trial Court in judgment dated 30th October, 2004. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.