JUDGMENT : 1. We have heard Shri Prem Shankar Prasad, learned A.G.A. for the State-appellant, and perused the record. 2. The instant Government Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 01.12.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in Sessions Trial No.100449 of 2017, titled as State v. Devendra Rajbhar and others , arising out of Case Crime No.94 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC read with Section ¾ of D.P Act registered at Police Station Tarwa, District Azamgarh. 3. After full fledged trail, the trial court acquitted all the three accused; (i) Devendra Rajbhar- husband, (ii) Dharmendra Rajbhar- brother-in-law, (iii) Urmila Devi- mother-in-law from the charges framed under Section 4 98-A, 304-B IPC, alternate charges under Section 3 02 read with Section 3 /4 of D.P. Act. 4. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused Devendra Rajbhar, Dharmendra Rajbhar, and Urmila Devi, the State-appellant has preferred the instant appeal challenging the order of acquittal qua aforesaid accused persons. 5. Succinctly, the prosecution case is that the complainant- Nitish Rajbhar approached the police station Tarwa with a tehrir in regard to his sister’s murder by her in-laws. On the basis of which the police initiated the investigation and subsequently the accused persons faced the trial. For clarity, the contents of tehrir are extracted herein below: 6. After registration of the FIR, the police conducted the investigation and recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and filed the charge-sheet against three accused persons named in the F.I.R. viz; (i) Devendra Rajbhar, (ii) Dharmendra Rajbhar, and (iii) Urmila Devi. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took the cognizance and after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the court of sessions for its trial, and framed the charges under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused persons. The same were read over and explained to the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. The prosecution has produced the following documentary evidence to prove its case: “(i) Written Report dated 14.10.1987, Ex. Ka-1 (ii) FIR dated 14.10.1987 at 10:15 a.m., Ex. Ka-13 and FIR dated 14.10.1987 at 11:00 p.m., Ex. Ka-2 (iii) Recovery memo of Axe ‘Ahni’, Bamboo & Farsa, Ex. Ka-16 (iv) Recovery memo of blood-stained and plain earth, Ex. Ka-17 and Ex. Ka-18 (v) Recovery memo of blood-stained clothes, Ex. Ka-1 (ii) FIR dated 14.10.1987 at 10:15 a.m., Ex. Ka-13 and FIR dated 14.10.1987 at 11:00 p.m., Ex. Ka-2 (iii) Recovery memo of Axe ‘Ahni’, Bamboo & Farsa, Ex. Ka-16 (iv) Recovery memo of blood-stained and plain earth, Ex. Ka-17 and Ex. Ka-18 (v) Recovery memo of blood-stained clothes, Ex. Ka-22 (vi) Recovery memo of S.B.B.L. Gun, Ex. Ka-1 (vii) Injury reports, Ex. Ka-2 and Ka-27 (viii) Post-mortem report, Ex. Ka-3 (ix) Permission for prosecution under Section 39 of ARMS ACT , Ex.Ka-8 and Ka-9” 8. The prosecution examined the complainant- Nitish Rajbhar as PW-1; Sheesham Rajbhar as PW-2; sister of the deceased, Bindu Devi as PW-3; mother of the deceased; Dr. Haseen Ahmad, who conducted the postmortem as PW-4; Constable Banvari Yadav, who registered the FIR as PW-5; Arvind Kumar, Nayab Tehsildar who prepared the Panchnama as PW-6; Inspector S.P. Tomar who exhibited the charge-sheet and site plan as PW-7. 9. The complainant Nitish Rajbhar- deceased’s brother- was examined as PW-1. In examination-in-chief, he reiterated the facts mentioned in the impugned FIR, and stated that all the accused persons have committed the murder of his sister as he could not fulfil the dowry demand of gold chain, watch, T.V. and Rs.30,000/- cash. He reiterated and stated that his sister was married with accused Devendra Rajbhar on 09.05.2013 and given dowry including Ring, Chain, T.V. and Rs.30,000/- cash as per their financial capacity. Soon after the marriage, her in-laws including husband- Devendra Rajbhar, brother-in- law Dharmendra Rajbhar, mother-in-law Urmila Devi started perpetuating cruelty upon her for brining insufficient dowry. On 13.05.2017 at about 02:00 p.m. his maternal uncle’s son Raju informed him that all the accused persons have committed murder of his sister. 10. During cross-examination, the witness stated that his sister was tortured mentally and physically by the accused persons. His sister has told him 15 days prior to the date of incident that the accused persons are demanding motorcycle and Rs.50,000/-. He admitted in the cross examination that the husband- Devendra Rajbhar and brother-in-law Dharmendra Rajbhar work in Mumbai and deceased had no issue as she was not able to conceive child, therefore, she used to remain disturbed. The deceased brother asked money from the accused Devendra Rajbhar for his sister’s treatment, but he refused to give any amount. He admitted in the cross examination that the husband- Devendra Rajbhar and brother-in-law Dharmendra Rajbhar work in Mumbai and deceased had no issue as she was not able to conceive child, therefore, she used to remain disturbed. The deceased brother asked money from the accused Devendra Rajbhar for his sister’s treatment, but he refused to give any amount. He further admitted that the fact of demand of dowry of Rs.50,000/- and motorcycle has not been mentioned in the FIR, but he does not know as to why the Investigating Officer did not mention this fact in the FIR. The witness also revealed this fact to the I.O., but he don’t know as to why he did not mention this fact in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 11. PW-2, sister of the deceased has also reiterated that her sister has been murdered by the accused persons for not bringing sufficient dowry. Likewise, PW-3 the mother of the deceased has also stated that the accused were demanding Rs.50,000/- cash and a car. 12. PW-4 Dr. Haseen Ahmad who conducted autopsy of the deceased and found ligature mark on the neck of the deceased and found the ante-mortem injury on the person of the deceased. 13. The doctor has opined that the death of the deceased was caused by suffocation due to hanging and on examination of the ligature mark it could safely be concluded that death has occurred either by suicide or self destruction. The Investigating Officer exhibited the charge sheet and site plan and supported the prosecutions case. 14. The incriminating material produced by the prosecution during the trial was then confronted by the accused persons for recording their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused persons stated that they have been falsely implicated at the behest of the complainant and there were no demand of dowry in fact they have provided sufficient money for the deceased’s treatment and the deceased was not able to conceive child and because of that she was in frustration and committed suicide. 15. The trial court discussed the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of each of the circumstances at length and held that the prosecution could not satisfactorily prove any of them, and therefore, acquitted all the accused persons. 16. 15. The trial court discussed the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of each of the circumstances at length and held that the prosecution could not satisfactorily prove any of them, and therefore, acquitted all the accused persons. 16. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently espoused the cause of the complainant and argued that the order passed by the trial court is cryptic, perverse and untenable, rendering the impugned judgment unsustainable in the eyes of law in presence of overwhelming evidence in the form of eye-witnesses and post-mortem report. 17. The trial court gravely erred in not taking into consideration the unimpeachable testimony of Nitish Rajbhar (PW-1), Sheesham Rajbhar (PW-2), and Bindu Devi (PW-3), which is cogent, consistent, reliable, corroborating and establishes the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. It is submitted that all the aforesaid three witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined, and on cross-examination, nothing adverse to the prosecution’s case has been brought on record. 18. The place of occurrence is matrimonial home, and demand of dowry is established by the prosecution witnesses and the trial court has completely ignored the material facts on record. The trial court has completely ignored the fact that the deceased was found dead in her matrimonial home within seven years of her marriage and there is a demand of dowry raised by the accused persons which is sufficient to prove the guilt against the accused persons; the victim 15 days prior from the date of incident had revealed the fact of demand of dowry of Rs. 50,000/- and motorcycle to her parents, therefore, this revelation in view of the death within three years at in-laws house cannot be brushed aside. 19. Per-contra, learned counsel for the accused-respondents contended that PWs 1, 2 and 3 are interested witnesses, being brother, sister and mother of the deceased, therefore, their testimonies were rightly rejected by the trial court. There are possibility that the complainant may falsely implicate the accused persons, who are husband, devar and mother-in-law of the deceased. Thus, the chances of false implication are greater. The approach of the trial court was justified and has strictly proceeded and appreciated the evidence in the manner, the law laid down by the Supreme Court. 20. The trial court rightly disbelieved the statements of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 regarding demand of dowry and commission of murder. 21. Thus, the chances of false implication are greater. The approach of the trial court was justified and has strictly proceeded and appreciated the evidence in the manner, the law laid down by the Supreme Court. 20. The trial court rightly disbelieved the statements of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 regarding demand of dowry and commission of murder. 21. The trial court order is a well-merited judgment, and this Court ought not to re-appreciate the evidence unless and until the parameters of Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat , (1996) 9 SCC 225 are met. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal must first report its conclusion on the question whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable and then re-appreciate the evidence to arrive at its own conclusion. The appellate court, while hearing the appeal against the judgment of acquittal, must satisfy itself that the approach of the trial court was patently illegal and its conclusion is unsustainable in the eye of law. 22. There is a huge material contradiction in the statement of PW-1 complainant, PW-2 and PW-3, therefore, it can safely be presumed that while sitting in judgment over an acquittal, the appellant Court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. 23. The Supreme Court in Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors, (2016) 4 SCC 357 case has observed that an appeal against acquittal has always been on an altogether different on account of an appeal against conviction. In an appeal against acquittal, where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity. 24. The Supreme Court in Basheera Begam v. Mohd. Ibrahim , [ (2020) 11 SCC 174 ] , has held that the burden of proving an accused guilty beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution. If, upon analysis of evidence, two views are possible, one which points to the guilt of the accused and the other which is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused, the latter must be preferred. Reversal of a judgment and other of conviction and acquittal of the accused should not ordinarily be interfered with unless such reversal/acquittal is vitiated by perversity. Reversal of a judgment and other of conviction and acquittal of the accused should not ordinarily be interfered with unless such reversal/acquittal is vitiated by perversity. In other words, the court might reverse an order of acquittal if the court finds that no person properly instructed in law could have, upon analysis of the evidence on record, found the accused to be “not guilty”. When circumstantial evidence points to the guilt of the accused, it is necessary to prove a motive for the crime. However, motive need not be proved where there is direct evidence. In this case, there is no direct evidence of the crime. 25. The Supreme Court again examined in State of Odisha v. Banabihari Mohapatra & Ors , (2021) 15 SCC 268 , the effect of the probability of two views in cases of appeal against acquittal and held that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused, and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. 26. The Supreme Court in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam , (2013) 12 SCC 406 , has reiterated the position that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 27. In the background of the law discussed herein above, we will examine the trial court’s findings and evidence adduced during the trial by the witnesses to test the legality and validity of the impugned order. 28. It is an admitted position that; (i) the deceased Neelam was found dead in her in-laws house, Doctor Haseen Ahmad (PW-4) who has conducted the postmortem opined that the death was caused due to suffocation because of hanging and on examination of the injuries was found to be suicidal in nature; (ii) PW-1 brother of the deceased had received money from the accused Devendra Rajbhar- the husband-in his account and he could not explain as to for what purpose the said money was sent by the accused-husband, (iii) there was no dowry demand soon before the death, (iv) the deceased was not able to conceive child and her treatment was going on, accused husband- Devendra Rajbhar and brother-in-law Dharmendra Rajbhar were in Mumbai at the time of incident. 29. 29. To reach a logical conclusion, it would be safe to examine the trial court's finding in light of the contents of the tehrir, the testimony of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4. The trial court observed that (i) contradiction in the statement of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 viz a viz the testimony of Dr. Haseen Ahmad PW-4 who conducted the post-mortem and prepared post-mortem report, and allegation of dowry demand soon before the death. The brother of the deceased PW-1 had in fact received money from his brother-in-law (accused-husband) in his account. Admittedly, the deceased was taking treatment as she was not able to conceive child, therefore, she was mentally disturbed and therefore, she committed suicide. PW-1 had admitted in his statement that the deceased was not able to conceive child, PW-2 and PW-3 mother and sister of the deceased had admitted in their cross-examination that she has not conceived child, and therefore, was disturbed and in the depression. 30. The 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Balaram vs. State of M.P. , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1468 , case again reiterated the well-established law that there are three types of witnesses: (i) one who is wholly reliable, (ii) one who is wholly unreliable and lastly, (iii) one who is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable and placed the reliance upon landmark decision of Vedivelu Thevar v. State of Madras , 1957 SCC OnLine SC 13 So far as the first two scenarios are concerned, the testimony of the witnesses can be wholly accepted or discarded, but with respect to the third scenario, where the testimony is partly reliable or partly unreliable, the Court faces difficulty, then the court is required to separate the chaff from the grain to find the genesis of the incident. 31. There is another canon of the criminal jurisprudence with respect to the appreciation of the evidence that the suspicion, however, strong but cannot take the place of proof. In the instant case, the deceased was married on 03.05.2013 with the accused Devendra Rajbhar and died on 31.05.2017 within five years of marriage, no dowry demand soon before the death has been proved. In the instant case, the deceased was married on 03.05.2013 with the accused Devendra Rajbhar and died on 31.05.2017 within five years of marriage, no dowry demand soon before the death has been proved. The brother of the deceased-PW-1 had received money from the accused- Devendra Rajbhar in his account and he could not examine as to why the money was sent to his brother-in-law (sala) where there was allegation of dowry demand after five years of marriage. As per doctors’ opinion the deceased had ligature mark on neck and possibility of suicide can’t be ruled out therefore, the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 can’t be appreciated in isolation and needs corroboration with care and caution with medical evidence. The statement of doctor in view of the aforesaid facts, the mother and sister PW-2 and PW-3 had admitted that she was not able to conceive child and was taking treatment, therefore, she was in a severe depression. The cumulative effect of the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 suggests the probability of two views and if two views on the evidence adduced are suggestive; one pointing to the guilt of accused and the other his innocence, the view in favour of the accused should be adopted. Moreover, applying the laid down text in Doshi case (supra), we don’t find any manifest error in the trial court’s approach in acquitting the accused. 32. We find it difficult to accept the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 in the manner the same has been deposed before the trial court. We consider that the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 would come in the third category of neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable for the reasons recorded herein above. Therefore, the contesting accused are entitled to the benefit of the doubt. 33. As a result, the Government Appeal No.181 of 2024, arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 1.12.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in Sessions Trial No.100449 of 2017 titled as State v. Devendra Rajbhar and others , is devoid of merits, and is accordingly dismissed, and thus, the impugned judgment and order dated 1.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in the aforesaid sessions trial is upheld.