JUDGMENT : (Syed Waiz Mian, J.) : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This government appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 30.5.2019, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, (Crimes against Women), Aligarh in Sessions Trial No. 246/2016, arising out of Case Crime No. 296/2014, P.S.-Madrak, district-Aligarh, whereby, he has acquitted the accused-respondents of the charges under Sections-498A, 506, 323, 376 and 406 I. P. C. and Sections-3/4 of D. P. Act. 3. The prosecution story in brief runs as under : It is admitted fact that the informant was wedded on 30.4.2011 with Manoj and in that marriage her parents had spent around six lacs rupees in dowry expenses etc.; her husband Manoj, on 30.5.2013 died leaving behind their daughter, aged about one year and four months. 4. P.W. 1 in her ocular evidence has stated that on presentation of her application dated 1.11.2014 under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. in which the alleged incident was stated to have occurred in the month of June, 2014 present case being Case Crime No. 296 of 2014, under Sections-498A, 506 I.P.C. and Sections-3/4 of D. P. Act, was registered at concerned police station and during her deposition she identified her application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. and also admitted her signature thereon, as such, this application was marked as Ext. Ka 1. 5. P. C. and also admitted her signature thereon, as such, this application was marked as Ext. Ka 1. 5. P.W. 1 in her examination-in-chief has deposed that her parents had spent about six lacks rupees in her marriage; some dowry was also given to her husband and in-laws but after marriage, they were not happy with the dowry; She with her daughter continued to live in her in-laws house; After death of her husband, Satpal, who happens to be her brother-in-law (dewar) had proposed her to marry with him and also said that he wants to lead his life with her but in-laws would taunt her that she wants to live as wife of Satpal (dewar) and both in-laws would send their son Satpal into her room and he forcibly made physical relations with her and continued her sexual harassment including rape upon her for many years till she lived there; she asked Satpal to fulfil his promise to marry her as he committed rape upon her continuously but on one or other pretext, he did not marry her; in the month of June, 2014 in the presence of her in-laws, Satpal (dewar), Yashoda sister-in-laws Neelam, Nihala and Divya, she demanded Satpal to marry her because by making false promise to marry her, he had raped her for months together, to which Nanad Divya intervened and said that marriage with Satpal is possible if she from her parents brings six-seven lacs rupees. She was also beaten and asked her to turn out from the house but she refused to leave her matrimonial house due to discord; She was forced to sit in the car and was left in the lurch out of the village. In this backdrop, she lodged F. I. R. against accused. 6. P.W. 1 informant in her entire deposition has not uttered a single word of any demand of dowry from her or any member of her family. P. W. 1 informant in her cross examination has stated that her daughter was born after one year of the marriage; she with her husband was living happily and she stayed in her matrimonial house; after three months of the death of her husband, her father and other members of family were called by the in-laws to their house and she had left her matrimonial home happily. Next she deposed that after lapse of 5-6 months, she was happily sent to her parental house and after passage of ten days in her parental house, her dewar Satpal came to take her to in-laws house; since she was ill therefore, her father took her to her matrimonial house thereafter. 7. P.W. 1 informant in her cross examination has admitted that after the death of her husband she stayed back for about 5-6 months in her matrimonial home and she was happy with the behaviour of her in-laws and other members of her family. She has not stated in her cross examination that demand of dowry was made by any member of her husband’s family or any article or cash as additional dowry until the death of her husband; even she has admitted that after 5-6 months of the death of her husband she stayed in her matrimonial house happily. As such, she has not specifically stated that demand of additional dowry was made by her in-laws or any member of their family. 8. P.W. 2 Prithvi Singh who is father of the informant P. W. 1, has stated in the examination-in-chief that after the marriage of her daughter with Manoj her in-laws, nanad Neelam, Nihala and Divya, father-in-law Babu Ram demanded two lacs and fifty thousand rupees as additional dowry and on its non-fulfilment, her daughter had told him that she was subjected to harassment; he had tried to persuade the aforementioned persons but they did not budge. 9. P.W. 2 also has supported the statement of P. W. 1 informant that in-laws of her daughter had promised that they shall marry their son Satpal with her after consultation with the family members; Satpal kept her daughter as his wife; on the demand to marry her, Satpal refused and all the members of the family of deceased Manoj said that the marriage could be solemnized if in the marriage 6-7 lacs rupees are spent; Before three and half years from the date of his deposition in the trial court, family members of her husband left her daughter and grand daughter outside the village. As such, P.W. 2 in his examination-in-chief has corroborated the statement of his daughter P.W. 1. 10. As such, P.W. 2 in his examination-in-chief has corroborated the statement of his daughter P.W. 1. 10. Accused in their defence have stated that informant and her parents were exerting pressure to give them half of their land to which, they did not agree, hence, they have been falsely implicated in the present case. P.W. 1 informant in her cross-examination has admitted that she had moved an application with regard to the incident at Mahila Thana one month before filing application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. and in the context of that application she had not told the Inspector about commission of rape upon her by Satpal (dewar). She further states that she has not told to Daroga about rape because she wanted to save her in laws. She has further admitted that at Mahila thana she had given her statement on 12.7.2014 and in her statement she had not told to Daroga that her in-laws and other family members (sasural wale) had made any demand for additional dowry or in the garb of proposal to marry with Satpal, he had committed rape upon her. The complaint made by P.W. 1 is on record as paper no. 18. 11. P.W. 1 informant has also admitted to have recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr. P. C. and relevant portion of the statement during her examination in the trial Court was read over to her and in her reply she admitted that in that statement it is not written that in-laws or members of their family made any demand for additional dowry. She also admits in her statement under Section 164 Cr. P. C. that it is also not mentioned that who used to send Satpal into her room. P. W. 2 Prithvi Singh in his examination-in-chief has stated that in-laws and other family members made constant demand for two lacs and fifty thousand as an additional dowry and on its non-fulfilment her daughter was subjected to physical torture. On the other hand, in the application Ext. Ka 1 and also P. W. 1 informant in her examination-in-chief has said that her in-laws and their family members used to make demand of 6-7 lacs rupees as an additional dowry. 12. P.W. 2 has admitted that within a year after her daughter's marriage with Manoj no demand for additional dowry was made. Ka 1 and also P. W. 1 informant in her examination-in-chief has said that her in-laws and their family members used to make demand of 6-7 lacs rupees as an additional dowry. 12. P.W. 2 has admitted that within a year after her daughter's marriage with Manoj no demand for additional dowry was made. Her daughter had not made any such complaint in this regard. He also admits that before presenting application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. an application by her daughter at the Mahila police station was presented and in that application it is not noted that demand of any dowry was made from him or from her daughter by in-laws or any member of her family. 13. P.W. 2 in his cross-examination has feigned ignorance that in the complaint made to Mahila police station it was not written that demand of any dowry was made and for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry her daughter would be beaten and her dewar, Satpal had committed rape upon her daughter. Further, he has also pleaded ignorance about the presentation of the complaint at the police station by saying that he does not remember it. Again he has pleaded ignorance about the application for compromise by her daughter was presented. 14. P.W. 2 has admitted in his cross-examination that panchayat was convened but compromise could not have been arrived at between them. After the panchayat he had said that half of the land should be given to his daughter but father-in-law of his daughter did not agree to give half of his land to his daughter. She also admits that on refusal her father-in-law has said that he will keep his daughter and grand daughter and he will take care of their expenses. He also admits in his deposition that he had also proposed to her father-in-law that if he is not ready to give her share, he should marry his son with his daughter. He has also stated that her father-in-law had spurned his proposal with regard to marriage saying since informant (his daughter-in-law) is the sister-in-law (bhabhi) of his son, therefore, he cannot marry his son with his bhabhi. 15. He has also stated that her father-in-law had spurned his proposal with regard to marriage saying since informant (his daughter-in-law) is the sister-in-law (bhabhi) of his son, therefore, he cannot marry his son with his bhabhi. 15. It is evident from the evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 that not only their statements with regard to the alleged rape and demand of additional dowry are inconsistent with each other but also self contradictory because if rape was continuously committed by Satpal and demand of additional dowry was made, then such allegations should have been mentioned in the complaint of P. W. 1, informant, which was admittedly presented at Mahila police station before the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was filed, it appears that such allegations have been made in the application Ext. Ka 1 later on, which are result of afterthought and improvement. 16. There is also contradictory evidence of P. W. 1, informant and P. W. 2 to the effect that informant was forced by her in-laws to enter into physical relationship with Satpal and also about the averment that her in-laws had promised her to marry their son Satpal with her and on such assurance, she got ready to have physical relationship with him. 17. It appears from the above discussion that after the death of Manoj, P. W. 1 informant lived for a considerable time in her matrimonial house and no demand of any dowry was made nor rape was committed upon her. Evidence regarding such allegations is admitted to have been levelled on the strength of refusal by co-accused Bhagwan Das to give half of land to the informant, P.W. 1. In previous complaint by informant P. W. 1 given at Mahila police station it was also not mentioned that after the marriage her in laws and other members of their family had started to make demand for additional dowry and on non-fulfilment of demand she was subjected to torture or was constantly beaten, therefore, such evidence of the informant and P. W. 2 is an afterthought which cannot be relied upon in view of the provisions of Evidence Act. P. W. 1 informant and P. W. 2 have also not deposed with regard to the allegations of abuse and threat. 18. In the application Ext. P. W. 1 informant and P. W. 2 have also not deposed with regard to the allegations of abuse and threat. 18. In the application Ext. Ka 1 details of dowry has not been given nor P.W. 1 and P. W. 2 have given details of dowry in their ocular evidence. 19. Rest of the witnesses are formal in nature and thus have proved FIR chik, copy of G. D., site plan and charge-sheet charges cannot be proved unless there is cogent and trustworthy ocular evidence of witnesses of facts. 20. Learned trial court has evaluated the evidence on record in detail and has fond that there are material contradictions in the deposition of informant and P. W. 2 and there is no cogent evidence on record to prove the charges for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 376 and 406 I. P. C. and Sections-3/4 of D. P. Act. 21. It is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the charges against the accused-respondent beyond reasonable doubt, which it has miserably failed. 22. We are not in agreement with the contentions raised on behalf of the State-appellant that by the impugned judgement and order trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record or the impugned judgement and order is perverse and erroneous in the eyes of law and is not sustainable. 23. Hence, the trial court has not erred in law by acquitting the respondents, therefore, impugned judgement and order is liable to be upheld and is accordingly upheld. 24. The leave to appeal is refused; consequently, the instant government appeal is dismissed. 25. Record of lower court along with certified copy of this order be sent to the court concerned forthwith for necessary action.