JUDGMENT : SANDEEP MEHTA, J. 1. The accused Suresh Kumar stands convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 03.07.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases), Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 18/2013: Offences Sentences Fine Fine Default sentences Under Section 498A IPC 3 Years’ R.I. Rs. 5,000/- Three Months’ Imprisonment Under Section 306 IPC 10 Years’ R.I. Rs. 10,000/- 1 Year’s Imprisonment All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentences, the accused appellant has preferred the appeal against conviction (705/2014) under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. 3. By the same Judgment, the learned trial court acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 302 IPC. The State of Rajasthan has assailed the impugned Judgment by filing appeal (80/2018) for assailing the acquittal of the accused of the charge of murder. 4. Since both the appeals arise out of a common Judgment, the same are being decided together. 5. Facts in brief are that P.W.3 Tarsem son of Beeru Ram (brother of deceased) lodged a typed report (Ex. P/6) at the Police Station Sadul Shahar on 01.10.2012 alleging inter alia that his sister Smt. Karamjeet was married to Suresh Kumar in the year 2000. After the marriage, Karamjeet’s husband Suresh Kumar, father-in-law Dharu Ram, mother-in-law Murti Devi, Jeth Pamma Ram and Jethani started harassing and humiliating her on account of demand of dowry. Karamjeet gave birth to three daughters whereafter, the accused started treating her with utter disrespect. The complainant tried to convene Panchayats and requested the accused to desist from their ill-behaviour with Karamjeet but, they did not relent. On 30.09.2012, Suresh, Dharu Ram, Murti Devi, Pamma Ram and Jethani of the deceased, all assaulted Karamjeet; poured kerosene on her and burnt her alive. Karamjeet expired by the burn injuries. All her ornaments were taken away by the accused. On the basis of this report, an FIR No. 294/2012 was registered at the Police Station Sardar Shahar, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences under Sections 498A and 302 IPC. It may be stated here that Shri Tarsem had lodged an earlier complaint (Ex. D/2) with the SHO, Police Station Sardar Shahar on 30.09.2012 itself, alleging inter alia that his sister had died in suspicious circumstances and thus, her postmortem be conducted and inquiry be held. On this complaint, proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were undertaken. It may be stated here that Shri Tarsem had lodged an earlier complaint (Ex. D/2) with the SHO, Police Station Sardar Shahar on 30.09.2012 itself, alleging inter alia that his sister had died in suspicious circumstances and thus, her postmortem be conducted and inquiry be held. On this complaint, proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were undertaken. In these proceedings, statement of Nisha (Ex. D/5), daughter of the appellant and the deceased, was recorded wherein, she alleged that her father had gone to Sadul Shahar on the fateful day at about 9 o’ clock in the morning. She was cleaning the bada. When she suddenly heard the fervent cries of her mother, she ran towards their room. Her mother was up in flames and was sitting on the charpai. Nobody other than her mother, she herself and her brothers and sister were present in the house. She totally denied the suggestion that her father and mother had quarreled with each other and stated that her mother set herself to fire after pouring kerosene on her body. During the course of investigation of FIR No. 294/2012, the first statement of Nisha was recorded on 02.10.2012 in which, she alleged that a day before the incident, her father and her mother had quarreled with each other and that her mother was beaten up. On this, her mother became enraged and did not take food. Thereafter, her grandmother came and took her and her siblings to her own house and gave them food to eat. Nisha noticed something fishy in the food and did not eat but her sibling took food and went to sleep at their grandmother’s house. She saw her mother sleeping. Her father went out of the house. She requested her mother to take food but she did not respond. She went to her Dadi’s house to call her. When she returned, she found the main gate locked from inside and smoke was coming out. She scaled the wall and went in the house and saw her mother up in flames. She poured water on her burning mother. Nobody other than her grandmother and her aunt, were present at the spot. A little later, her father brought the 108 Ambulance and took her mother to the Sadulshahar Hospital. She scaled the wall and went in the house and saw her mother up in flames. She poured water on her burning mother. Nobody other than her grandmother and her aunt, were present at the spot. A little later, her father brought the 108 Ambulance and took her mother to the Sadulshahar Hospital. She categorically stated that her father never maltreated her mother on account of dowry but, since he had beaten her up, her mother became perturbed and set herself to fire. However, a subsequent statement of Nisha was recorded by the I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as late as on 20.12.2012 (Ex. D/7) i.e. after nearly two months and twenty days of the incident wherein, she portrayed a new theory that her mother had been murdered by her grandmother, aunt, uncle and her father. In this statement, Nisha admitted that after the death of her mother, she was living with her mama. 6. After investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed only against the accused Suresh alone for the offence under Section 306 and 498A IPC. The trial court framed charges against the accused Suresh for these offences. He denied the same and claimed trial. During the course of trial and after recording of statement of Nisha (P.W.11), the trial court amended the charge and framed an alternative charge for the offence under Section 302 IPC against the accused in addition to the charge under Section 306 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge as well. The prosecution examined a total of 15 witnesses and exhibited 28 documents in support of its case. Upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, the accused denied the same. While no oral evidence was led in defence, 7 documents were exhibited. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court proceeded to discard the testimony of Nisha, the sole prosecution eye-witness regarding her claim that she had seen accused setting the deceased to fire and instead, convicted and sentenced the accused appellant alone for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and acquitted him from the charge under Section 302 IPC. Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentences awarded to him, the accused appellant Suresh has preferred the appeal No. 705/2014. Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentences awarded to him, the accused appellant Suresh has preferred the appeal No. 705/2014. On the other hand, the State of Rajasthan has filed the appeal No. 80/2018 for assailing the acquittal of the accused from the charge under Section 302 IPC. 7. Shri Rakesh Matoria, learned counsel representing the accused appellant Suresh Kumar vehemently and fervently urged that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The deceased was perturbed because of the property dispute which was going on between her and her Jethani. In this regard, he drew the Court’s attention to the statement of Rajkumar (P.W.4) who visited the deceased two days before the incident. He stressed upon the cross-examination made from this witnesses in which, he was confronted with his investigational statement (Ex. D/3) wherein, it is categorically mentioned that when he met Smt. Karamjeet, she told him that she desired that the family property should be partitioned. Referring to this part of investigational statement of Shri Rajkumar with which he was confronted, Shri Matoria urged that the entire bone of contention between the spouses was this controversy over partition of land. As per Shri Matoria, while the deceased was desirous of seeking partition of the family land, the accused was not agreeing to comply with this suggestion and that is why, the matrimonial strife arose. Shri Matoria submitted that the entire crux of the prosecution story which centres around a totally fictional theory that the accused used to beat the deceased with cruelty on account of demand of dowry and on the purported allegation that she had given birth to three daughters, is falsified by the aspect that the deceased was craving for partition of the family property. Manifestly, no credence can be attached to the concocted version of the maternal relatives of the deceased viz. P.W.3 Tarsem Singh (the first informant and brother of the deceased), P.W.1 Sohan Lai (uncle of the deceased) and Rajkumar (P.W.4). Shri Matoria submitted that the sole witness on whose testimony, the prosecution banks upon so as to prove the charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused is none other than Nisha (P.W.11) the daughter of the appellant and the deceased. As per him, testimony of Nisha is totally unreliable and she is a tutored witness and thus, even the charge under Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained against the accused. As per him, testimony of Nisha is totally unreliable and she is a tutored witness and thus, even the charge under Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained against the accused. He submitted that Nisha, when examined during the inquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C. on 30.09.2012 (Statement-Ex. D/5) and initially during investigation (Statement-Ex. D/4), did not allege that her father, the accused herein, murdered her mother and rather, she stated that he was not even present in the house when the incident occurred. He urged that after these statements had been recorded, Nisha was taken away by her Mama Tarsem and her subsequent statement was got recorded by the Investigating Officer (Ex. D/7 dated 20.12.2012) wherein, for the first time, after nearly two months and twenty days of the incident, the theory of murder was portrayed. He urged that even in this tutored version to which, the witness stuck in her sworn testimony, the allegation of burning the deceased is equally attributed to Murti Devi, the accused appellant Suresh and the Jethani of the deceased. He submitted that in view of the fact that Nisha’s initial investigational statement is totally silent regarding the appellant setting the deceased to fire and since, she could not explain the significant omissions and contradiction to this effect when confronted with her previous statements, as per Shri Matoria, the entire prosecution case becomes false and fabricated. He further urged that as a matter of fact, another reason for the strife between the accused appellant and the deceased was the fact that the lady was indulged in an illicit extramarital affair with one Dharam Pal who was examined by the prosecution as P.W.14. He drew the Court’s attention to the cross-examination conducted by the Public Prosecutor from the said Dharam Pal in which, the witness was confronted with his investigational statement (Ex. P/26) wherein, the witness explicitly admitted existence of an illicit extramarital affair between him and the deceased. He thus urges that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. As per him, the trial court failed to appreciate this important aspect of the matter and erred while convicting the accused appellant for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and that the accused is entitled to complete acquittal. He thus urges that the impugned judgment is absolutely bad on facts as well as in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. He thus urges that the impugned judgment is absolutely bad on facts as well as in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. He thus sought acceptance of the appeal and dismissal of the appeal filed against acquittal of the appellant Suresh Kumar. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant’s counsel. He urged that there can be no reason for this Court to discard the testimony of the child witness Nisha. She is the innocent daughter of the appellant Suresh Kumar and the deceased and can be expected to give the true untainted version of the incident. Regarding the statement of Dharam Pal, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as the witness did not stick to the theory of the alleged extramarital affair in his sworn testimony, no significance can be attached to his investigational statement. He thus sought dismissal of the appeal against acquittal and implored the Court to set aside the impugned Judgment to the extent the accused was acquitted from the charge under Section 302 IPC and to convict him for the said offence. 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the statement advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and the entire record. We have threadbare perused the evidence led by the parties. 10. It is an admitted case that the marriage of the accused with the deceased was solemnised more than 12 years before her death and as such, the prosecution cannot press into service of any legal presumption in its endeavour to bring him the charges against the accused. Thus, the prosecution has to point out cogent, convincing and palpable evidence to prove the charge and to satisfy the Court that the accused Suresh murdered the deceased Karamjeet or that he instigated her to such an extent that she was left with no other option but to end her life. The best possible evidence to prove both the facts would be none other than Nisha (P.W.11) being the daughter of the accused appellant and the deceased. As has been noted above, the witness was examined twice just after the incident once in the inquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C. (Statement Ex. D/5 dated 30.10.2013) and thereafter under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Statement Ex. D/4 dated 02.10.2012). As has been noted above, the witness was examined twice just after the incident once in the inquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C. (Statement Ex. D/5 dated 30.10.2013) and thereafter under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Statement Ex. D/4 dated 02.10.2012). In neither of these statements, did the witness set up a theory that her father i.e. the accused appellant herein, had murdered her mother. It is only in the investigational statement (Ex. D/7) recorded on 02.10.2012 i.e. after more than two months, did she allege that on the day before the incident, her father Suresh Kumar had beaten up her mother but in this statement also, there is no allegation that the accused appellant or his other family members murdered the deceased. Rather, there is a categoric assertion by the witness even in this statement that the accused appellant was not present in the house when the deceased caught fire. The witness was confronted with this statement but, she denied to have made the same. Even in this statement, the witness stated that the appellant herein had left the house saying that he was going to the Mandi and in his absence, the grandmother, uncle and aunt set her mother to fire. Not only this, the witness categorically referred to the visits of Dharam Pal Nayak to their home in the investigational statement (Ex. D/4). For a substantial period of two months after which, the statement of Nisha (Ex. D/7) was recorded, she was admittedly living with her uncle Tarsem. Thus, the witness was apparently tutored by Shri Tarsem to give false evidence so as to implicate the accused in this crime. The prosecution case gets totally blown up when we evaluate the statement of Dharam Pal (P.W.14). He was proposed as a witness of the prosecution to prove that he was engaged in an illicit extramarital affair with the deceased. True it is that the witness did not stick to this allegation and tried to wriggle out of his investigational statement (Ex. P/26). However, the Public Prosecutor confronted the witness with the previous statement (Ex. P/26) wherein, there is a specific admission by Dharampal that he and the deceased were indulged in an extramarital affair and used to cohabit with each other on numerous occasions in absence of the accused. Rajkumar (P.W.4) was the witness who visited the deceased just a couple of days prior to the incident. P/26) wherein, there is a specific admission by Dharampal that he and the deceased were indulged in an extramarital affair and used to cohabit with each other on numerous occasions in absence of the accused. Rajkumar (P.W.4) was the witness who visited the deceased just a couple of days prior to the incident. In his investigational statement (Ex. D/3) with which the witness was confronted, he stated that the deceased confided in him that she is desirous of getting the family property partitioned. 11. As per the medical evidence deposed by Dr. Mahesh Gupta (P.W.5) who proved the postmortem report (Ex. P/8), the cause of death of Smt. Karamjeet was ante-mortem burns. Smell of kerosene was emanating from body. The wind pipe bore marks of blackening. Manifestly thus, the deceased herself committed suicide by setting herself to fire by pouring kerosene on her person. 12. In wake of the facts noted herein above, we are of the firm opinion that the material prosecution witnesses have concealed and contorted the truth while deposing before the court. The entire foundation of the prosecution case is convoluted and nothing but a bundle of lies. As a matter of fact, the death of Smt. Karamjeet appears to be a culmination of the illicit extramarital affairs between her and Dharam Pal and her desire to have the family property partitioned which the accused was rightfully opposing. Thus, we are not inclined to rely upon the testimony of the first informant Tarsem (P.W.3) and Nisha (P.W.11) and hold that their evidence is totally fabricated. No other evidence was led by the prosecution so as to establish the culpability of the accused either for the charge of murder or of abetment to commit suicide. 13. In view of the above discussion, we are of the firm opinion that the learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in an apropos manner while recording a finding of guilt against the accused. The accused deserves to be acquitted in toto while extending him benefit of doubt. 14. Accordingly, the appeal No. 705/2014 is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 03.07.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases), Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 18/2013 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant Suresh Kumar S/o. Dharu Ram is acquitted of the charges under Sections 306 and 498A IPC. 14. Accordingly, the appeal No. 705/2014 is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 03.07.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases), Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 18/2013 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant Suresh Kumar S/o. Dharu Ram is acquitted of the charges under Sections 306 and 498A IPC. The appellant is in custody and shall be released from prison forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 15. The appeal No. 80/2018 filed by the State of Rajasthan against acquittal of Suresh Kumar from the offence under Section 302 is rejected. 16. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. the accused appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a Special Leave Petition against the present judgment on receipt of notice thereof, the appellant shall appear before the Supreme Court.