JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State laying a challenge to the judgment dated 29.11.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, (‘Trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.67/94 (State vs Daria Khan & Ors.), whereby the accused-respondents herein were acquitted of the charges against them under Sections 302, 498A, 120B & 201 IPC, while giving them the benefit of doubt. 2. At the outset, Mr. Yogendra Singh Charan for Mr. N.K. Gurjar, learned GA cum AAG, appearing on behalf of the appellant-State drew the attention of this Court towards the order dated 16.12.2021 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court, which reflects that on count of demise of the respondent No.3-Lehra and respondent No.6-Pathan Khan, the instant appeal qua them stood abated on the said date itself. He has also produced before this Court a report dated 18.09.2024 received from the Police Station, Sankra, District Jaisalmer, wherein it has been mentioned that apart from the said accused-respondents i.e., Lehra & Pathan Khan, accused-respondents Anwar Khan, Ibrahim, Dariya Khan & Dole Khan have also already expired. Thus, in light of the same, the instant appeal qua accused-respondents Anwar Khan, Ibrahim, Dariya Khan & Dole Khan also stands abated. The said report dated 18.09.2024 is taken on record. 2.1. Accordingly, the present adjudication is made only to the extent of surviving accused-respondents namely, Daria Khan s/o Karim Khan, Smt. Kachi, Gopeh Khan and Kuchar Khan. 3. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred in the year 1994 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1998. 4. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, are that on 08.08.1994, Jiye Khan (complainant) made an oral information before the Reserve (Aarakshi) Centre, Sakra, District Jaisalmer, stating therein that Smt. Kamla (the deceased, niece of the complainant), was married off to one Daria Khan (accused-respondent) 5 years prior to the date of incident and that thereafter, she was murdered by her husband and the in-laws, by administering poison. The said information was received by the complainant when he visited one Kodhu Khan in the Luna village; whereupon after receiving the information, the complainant asked Kodhu Khan to visit the in-law’s village viz., Ola and ascertain the truth of the said information. The said information was received by the complainant when he visited one Kodhu Khan in the Luna village; whereupon after receiving the information, the complainant asked Kodhu Khan to visit the in-law’s village viz., Ola and ascertain the truth of the said information. Thereafter, Kodhu Khan visited the village and got the same information confirmed by Tagaram, Aukarram Darji, Bagaram and Tejaram that Smt. Kamla had died under unnatural circumstances; however, later on said persons informed that she had been murdered and her dead body had been buried without informing her family. 4.1. It was also mentioned in the said report that the deceased Smt. Kamla on earlier occasions have also confessed of her being subjected to mental torture and beatings by her husband and in-laws, in pursuance to the demand dowry and also, that her husband wanted to solemnize second marriage. 4.2. On the basis of the aforementioned oral information, an FIR (Ex.P./16) was lodged at 8 PM on 08.08.1994 at Police Station Sakra, Jaisalmer and thereafter, the investigation commenced accordingly. During the course of investigation, the body of Smt. Kamla (deceased) was taken out of the grave and was sent for postmortem, whereupon the cause of death was found out to be poisoning. Subsequent to this, a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 302, 201, 120 B, and 498A, of IPC against the accused-respondents, and owing to the nature of the offence involved the matter was committed to the learned Sessions Court for the trial; and thereafter, the matter was transferred to the learned Trial Court for due trial, accordingly. 4.3. During the course of trial, the evidence of 22 prosecution witnesses were recorded and Exhibits 1-34 were exhibited on behalf of the appellant-State; whereas, the defence placed 2 exhibits on record for examination; thereafter, the accused-respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they pleaded innocence and their false implication in the criminal case in question. 4.4. The learned Trial Court, after hearing the contentions of both the parties as well as considering the material and evidence placed on record, acquitted all the accused- respondents vide the impugned judgment dated 29.11.1997, against which the present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant- State. 5. 4.4. The learned Trial Court, after hearing the contentions of both the parties as well as considering the material and evidence placed on record, acquitted all the accused- respondents vide the impugned judgment dated 29.11.1997, against which the present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant- State. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant- State submitted that the prosecution witness PW-18, Jiye Khan, has supported the prosecution story that the deceased has told in the past, that within 1.5 years of her marriage, she was continuously being subjected to mental torture in pursuance to the demand of dowry and upon non-fulfilmemt of the same, she was also being subjected to beatings by the accused-respondent Daria Khan. 5.1. Learned counsel further submitted that PW-18, has stated that accused-respondent Daria Khan, wanted to re-marry and for the same reason a panchayat was also called for in the village, which in turn manifests the motive and intention on the part of the accused-respondents to cause the death of the deceased. The same is even corroborated by the act of burying her in a suspicious manner. 5.2. Learned counsel also submitted that there were no eyewitnesses to the incident in question, and therefore, the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. The recovery of poison and the steel taasli, which was used for administering poison was made vide Ex.P.-9 on the basis of the statements of the accused-respondent under Section 27 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the same clearly indicates the involvement of the accused-respondents in commission of the crime in question. 5.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the post-mortem report (Ex.P.-9) prepared by PW-5 Dr. V.D. Jetha and PW-6 Dr. Shanti Lal, indicates that the cause of the death in question was asphyxia which was caused due to burning of the whole body, which in turn clearly supports the prosecution story that the accused-respondents firstly administered poison and thereafter, burned Smt. Kamla’s body by pouring boiling water on her, which is also supported by the testimony of PW- 19, S.D.M.; the hair collected from the deceased were also somewhat burnt. 5.4. Learned counsel also submitted that the traces of the insecticide BHC (Benzene Hexachloride) found in the stomach of the deceased, matches with the F.S.L. report (Ex.P.-34), which further supports the prosecution case. 5.5. 5.4. Learned counsel also submitted that the traces of the insecticide BHC (Benzene Hexachloride) found in the stomach of the deceased, matches with the F.S.L. report (Ex.P.-34), which further supports the prosecution case. 5.5. Learned counsel further submitted that the death in question was caused within 7 years of marriage of Smt. Kamla with the accused-respondent Daria Khan, inside the house of the accused respondent, and the same therefore raises the presumption under Section 113 of the Indian Evidence Act, against the accused-respondents. 5.6. Learned counsel also submitted that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused-respondent beyond all reasonable doubts, by corroborating the same with medical evidences, testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, F.S.L. Reports as well as the recoveries made in the presence of the motbirs, on account of information given by the accused-respondents. It is therefore submitted that it is a fit case for conviction of the accused-respondents; and the learned Trial Court has erred in wrongfully arriving at the conclusion of their acquittal, vide the impugned judgment. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. L.D. Khatri along with Mr. Chirag Khatri, appearing on behalf of the accused-respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the appellant-State, submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused-respondents that the ulterior motive behind the commission of the crime was cruelty, particularly owing to the dowry demand. It was also submitted that the prosecution case is mainly based on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, and most of the witnesses are either close relatives of the deceased or were interested witnesses. 6.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the postmortem report (Ex.P.-9) and the testimonies of PW-5 and PW-6, indicate that the death in question was caused due to asphyxia, however the reason for the same was not known, as to whether it was due to poisoning, or strangulation or poisoning followed by strangulation and burning (according to the prosecution story); and the same resultantly shakes the credibility of the prosecution’s case. 6.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the prosecution witnesses PW-1 Ganpat Singh, PW-2 Baagaram and PW-3 Khubchand (who is also a recovery witness), have been declared hostile during the course of the trial and therefore, their statements are not of much support to the prosecution case. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the material available on record. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the material available on record. 8. This Court observes that the deceased Smt. Kamla, according to the oral information given by Jiye Khan (the complainant), was subjected to mental torture and beatings in pursuance of dowry demands; that due to the unfulfilled demands and an aspiration to solemnize a second marriage, Dariye Khan, husband of the deceased, alongwith his relatives, murdered and hurriedly buried the body of the deceased- Smt. Kamla. That on the basis of aforesaid information, an FIR was lodged against the accused-respondents, whereafter the charge sheet was filed against the accused- Dariya u/s 302, 498A and 120B, against accused Anwar Khan, Lahro and Laachi u/s 498A, 120B and against others u/s 201. Thereafter, the trial commenced accordingly, wherein the learned trial court acquitted all the accused-respondents vide the impugned judgment. 9. This Court further observes upon the perusal of the record of the case and the exhibits highlighted by the appellant-State that, neither any prosecution witness nor any neighbour has reported or contended that soon before her death, Smt. Kamla (deceased) was subjected to any kind of cruelty nor did they make any report regarding any fracas of the said incident in question; the same further casts doubt upon the prosecution story. 10. This Court further observes that the prosecution witnesses Ganpat Singh PW-1, Bagaram PW-2 and Khoobchand PW-3 were declared hostile and hence their testimonies cannot be relied upon. 11. This Court also observes that though the postmortem report (Ex.P.-9) prepared by PW-5 and PW-6, provides for asphyxia to be the cause of death; however, the circumstances that led to asphyxia are neither known nor proved by the prosecution. Therefore, in absence of any medical evidence or testimony of the witness, the accused-respondents’ case further gets strengthened. 12. This Court further observes that it is evident from the FSL Report (Ex. P.-34) that there were traces of ‘BHC’ chemical (Benzene Hexachloride) found in the stomach of the deceased. The same was also recovered from the ‘taasli’ at the place of incidence. However, absence of any corroborative evidence supporting the same, weakens the prosecution story as the conviction of the accused-respondents merely on the ground of the said recovery would not be justified in law. 13. The same was also recovered from the ‘taasli’ at the place of incidence. However, absence of any corroborative evidence supporting the same, weakens the prosecution story as the conviction of the accused-respondents merely on the ground of the said recovery would not be justified in law. 13. This Court also observes that it is an admitted fact that the deceased and the accused-respondents shared the same household in a decently populated locality. Thus, it is highly improbable and difficult to accept the fact that the causation of death by poisoning and burning the body of the deceased and thereafter causing the burial of the dead body by the accused respondents took place, without it coming into the knowledge of any neighbour. It is further observed that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive, reason and involvement of all the members of the said family in causing the crime in question. 14. This Court further observes that there has been no cogent and direct evidence which highlights that the deceased was subjected to any kind of harassment or cruelty, prior to her death, which in turn further weakens the prosecution’s case as to the conviction of the accused-respondents. 15. 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. 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 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. 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’s impugned judgment acquitting the accused-respondents of the charges against them 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 analyzed 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. 16. This Court observes that the present factual matrix highlights a sad state of affairs, wherein a 7-month pregnant woman was brutally subjected to death under unnatural circumstances. However, the oral and documentary evidences which have been placed on record, are insufficient to conclusively prove the prosecution’s case against the accused-respondents beyond all reasonable doubts. 16. This Court observes that the present factual matrix highlights a sad state of affairs, wherein a 7-month pregnant woman was brutally subjected to death under unnatural circumstances. However, the oral and documentary evidences which have been placed on record, are insufficient to conclusively prove the prosecution’s case against the accused-respondents beyond all reasonable doubts. The discrepancies as highlighted above in the oral and documentary evidences presented by the prosecution and the resultant shortcomings in it’s story, gives accused-respondents a benefit of doubt in the instant case. 17. 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, and that a mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgment. 18. Thus, in the overall factual matrix and the circumstances surrounding the case as well as in light of the aforementioned precedent laws, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court cannot be said to be anything, which would call for intervention of this Court to reverse the same. 19. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. 19.1. However, keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A CrPC / Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the each of the surviving accused-respondents are directed to furnish a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each and a surety bond each 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 Special Leave Petition against this judgment or for grant of leave, the surviving accused-respondents, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as and when called upon to do so. 19.2. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.