ORDER : 1. This criminal appeal under Section 378 (iii) and (i) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant-State laying challenge to the judgment of acquittal dated 28.09.2001, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Ratangarh, Churu in Sessions Case No.46/2001 (35/1999) (State Vs. Dula Ram & Ors.), whereby the accused-respondents were acquitted of the offences under Sections 302/34 and 498 A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred on 22.05.1999 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 2002. 3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by Mr. N.K. Gurjar, learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant-State and Mr. Suresh Kumbhat appearing on behalf of complainant, are that the complainant Chunni Lal (uncle of the deceased) had filed a complaint stating that his niece Kasturi married to the accused - Mala Ram about 6 years ago. The allegations in the report are that Kasturi was harassed by her husband and in-laws which included comments regarding her complexion, dowry demand etc. The family of the deceased came to know that she was not well, and when the family members, including Chunni Lal (uncle of deceased), brother Chagan Lal, nephew Bhanwar Lal and mother of Kasturi, namely Sukhi reached at her in-laws’ house at Sri Dungargarh at about 4:00 am, they were told by Kasturi that she had been given poison by her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law in the night. Thereafter, she was taken to Tulsi Sewa Kendra (hospital) where she started vomiting. At about 11:00 pm, she was taken back to home. After citing the incident, Kasturi was expired in front of them. 4. On the basis of the aforementioned information, an FIR was lodged on the report given by complainant Chunni Lal (PW-1) at 10.15 am on 23.05.1999 before P.S. Sri Dungargarh, District - Churu. After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and the trial commenced accordingly. 5. After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and the trial commenced accordingly. 5. During the course of trial, the evidence of 16 prosecution witnesses were recorded and 31 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution; two defence witnesses were examined and 4 documents were exhibited on behalf of the accused-respondents whereafter, the accused-respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they pleaded innocence and their false implication in the criminal case in question. 6. Thereafter, upon hearing the contentions of both the parties as well as after considering the material and evidence placed on record, the learned Trial Court, acquitted the accused-respondents, vide the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 28.09.2001, against which the present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-State. 7. Learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant-State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant submit that out of the 16 witnesses examined by the prosecution, three witnesses - Shri Chunni Lal (PW-1), Smt. Sukhi (PW-2) and Shri Chhaganlal (PW-8) are eye witnesses, as they claim to have reached the spot where the deceased herself narrated the incident to them. Therefore, they argue that a full proof case is made out against the accused-respondents due to the evidence of eye witnesses. Although they are close relatives of the deceased, but still their testimonies cannot be ruled out as their presence on the spot is proved.7.1 It has been further submitted that medical evidence is clear and the postmortem report (Ex.P/11) also confirms the death of the deceased due to poison. 7.2 They also submit that the case also travels under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code against the accused-respondents because the death occurred within a period of 7 years of marriage and there was an allegation of dowry demand against them and thus, the basic ingredients of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code are made out. 7.3 They further submit that the eye witnesses are clearly supporting the case, hence, there is no reason why the acquittal judgment should sustain. 8. On the other hand Ms. 7.3 They further submit that the eye witnesses are clearly supporting the case, hence, there is no reason why the acquittal judgment should sustain. 8. On the other hand Ms. Anjali Kaushik, learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondents while opposing the submissions made on behalf of the appellant-State, submits that accused-respondents are innocent and even if the prosecution story is believed, then also the witnesses are not eye witnesses but in fact they reached at the fag end, as per their own version and thereafter, the in-laws had taken Kasturi (deceased) to the hospital i.e. Tulsi Sewa Kendra which is good medical care centre and thus, they were not in a position to directly depose as to whether the death has been caused by the in-laws and the husband or not. 8.1 Learned Counsel further submits that the case of the prosecution has failed because though, it could be believed that she had consumed poison, but whether the same has been administered by the husband and in-laws or they having a role, in administering the poison, is not made out. 8.2 Learned counsel also submits that the order passed by the learned trial Court is a well reasoned order and the same does not call for any interference by this Court. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the material available on record. 10. This Court finds that the death is by poisoning, however there are no signs of struggle or any kind of physical force used to administer poison or by physically overpowering the deceased. This Court further finds that there is no injury on the body of the deceased which could indicate that she was forcibly given poison. 10.1 This Court also finds that the disturbances even if reported between the in-laws (accused-respondents) and the deceased, could not indicate a clear case of forceful poisoning by in-laws and the husband (accused-respondents). Moreover, this Court further finds that the in-laws themselves took the deceased to the hospital (Tulsi Sewa Kendra) and they tried to get her treated there. 11. This Court has also taken note of the fact that the postmortem report (Ex.-P/11) did not indicate any sign of struggle, apart from the bluish face, which was a result of the poison which may have been consumed by the deceased herself in stress. 11. This Court has also taken note of the fact that the postmortem report (Ex.-P/11) did not indicate any sign of struggle, apart from the bluish face, which was a result of the poison which may have been consumed by the deceased herself in stress. The witnesses have arrived at the spot at the fag end and claimed to have just heard one statement from the deceased, whereas there is no other statement which is supported by the independent witnesses of any Doctor or by any authority. The poison is said to have been given on 22.05.1999 in the afternoon and after the preliminary treatment, she was given treatment in the hospital - Tulsi Sewa Kendra. The Doctor or any independent witness of the hospital had not supported the story of the prosecution. 12. This Court finds that the learned Trial Court has also dealt with the testimony of PW-6 Dr. S.K. Gihani, on the aspect, as to when and in what manner, the samples of internal body parts were collected and handed over to the police. However, it was recorded by the learned Trial Court that it is doubtful as to who carried the said samples for handing over the same to the FSL for due analysis and examination. 13. This Court takes note of the fact that the Trial Court has dealt with the testimonies of PW-3 – Shri Madharam and PW-5 - Smt. Parvati who have not supported the prosecution case. The testimonies of PW-2 – Smt. Sukhi, PW-9 – Shri Bhanwar Lal and PW-4 – Shri Deendayal reported that there were minor issues/ quarrel within the family but the same does not indicate that the poison was forcefully administered to the deceased. The Trial Court has dealt with all the aspects of the prosecution witnesses and exhibits. The trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that the witnesses have exaggerated the facts and thus cannot be relied upon. Absence of independent witnesses is a point which was moving in the mind of the learned Trial Court, moreover, the testimonies of hostile witnesses namely Shri Madharam (PW-3) and Smt. Parvati (PW-5) were taken into account by the learned Trial Court. The factum of subjection of the deceased to harassment owing to the demand of dowry as well as her complexion, could not be established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. 14. The factum of subjection of the deceased to harassment owing to the demand of dowry as well as her complexion, could not be established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. 14. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portions of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Mallappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 1162/2011, decided on 12.02.2024) and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 985/2010, decided on 19.04.2024), as hereunder-: Mallappa & Ors. (Supra): “36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as: (i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary; (ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.” Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors. (Supra): “38. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court summarized the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC as follows: “8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence; 8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence; 8.3. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence; 8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence; 8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record; 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.” 39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles: (a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; (b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; (c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.” 15. This Court further observes that the learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgment of acquittal of the accused-respondents for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, which in the given circumstances, is justified in law, because as per the settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments, to the effect that the judgment of the Trial Court can be reversed by the Appellate Court only when it demonstrates an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in arriving at such decision; but in the present case, the learned Trial Court, before passing the impugned judgment had examined each and every witness at a considerable length and duly analysed the documents produced before it, coupled with examination of the oral as well as documentary evidence, and thus, the impugned judgment suffers from no perversity or error of law or fact, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in the instant appeal. 15.1 This Court has carefully gone through the judgment of the learned trial Court and finds that the learned trial Court has rightly arrived at the conclusion of acquittal as the prosecution has failed to prove a full proof case and rather the same is full of lacunae and assumptions. The forceful administration of poison was thus rightly not made out. Therefore, the reason arrived at by the learned trial Court for the acquittal does not call for any interference from this Court as the flow of the judgment does not indicate any kind of deviation from the facts or the evidence which has been adduced. 16. This Court also observes that the scope of interference in the acquittal order passed by the learned Trial Court is very limited, and if the impugned judgment of the learned Trial Court demonstrates a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments, and thus, on that count also, the impugned judgment deserves no interference by this Court in the instant appeal. 17. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case as well as in light of the aforementioned precedent laws, this Court does not find it a fit case warranting any interference by this Court. 18. 17. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case as well as in light of the aforementioned precedent laws, this Court does not find it a fit case warranting any interference by this Court. 18. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. 19. However, while keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C./Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the accused-respondents are directed to furnish a personal bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/- each and a surety bond in the like amount, before the learned Trial Court, which shall be made effective for a period of six months, to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or for grant of leave, the accused-respondents, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as soon as they would be called upon to do so. 20. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.