JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 13.12.2019 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge- VIII, Giridih in ST No. 212 of 2015, arising out of Ahilyapur PS Case No. 26 of 2014, GR No. 1772 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have been acquitted for the offence under sections 304B/34 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case as per written report of the informant PW-3 Faguni Devi is that her daughter Laxmi Devi was married to Pradeep Thakur five years ago and lived happily for some days. But, thereafter, her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law started assaulting and torturing her daughter for dowry. Accused persons demanded Rs. 2 lakhs cash and ornaments and threatened that if demand is not fulfilled, they will not allow her to live in the matrimonial house. Informant further stated that suddenly on 08.06.2014, in the evening at 5 p.m. accused persons came to her home with her daughter and told that her daughter fell into the well. Informant further stated that daughter was taken to the doctor, but doctor declared her dead. 4. On the basis of written report of the informant Ahilyapur PS case no. 26 of 2014 dated 09.06. 2014 was registered under section 304(B) of IPC against the respondents. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the respondents under sections 304B/34 and 302/34 of IPC and trial was held. At the conclusion of the trial, respondents were acquitted of the charges, hence, this appeal. 5. Prosecution has examined altogether 12 witnesses out of whom PW-3 Faguni Devi is the informant of the case and mother of the deceased;PW-1 Aarti Devi, is the sister of the deceased; PW-2 is Dharmjit Prasad; PW-4 is Dr. At the conclusion of the trial, respondents were acquitted of the charges, hence, this appeal. 5. Prosecution has examined altogether 12 witnesses out of whom PW-3 Faguni Devi is the informant of the case and mother of the deceased;PW-1 Aarti Devi, is the sister of the deceased; PW-2 is Dharmjit Prasad; PW-4 is Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh, who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased;PW-5 is Bhunna Mandal;PW-6 is Ashok Yadav; PW-7 is Chhotu Kumar Mandal; PW-8 Raju Kumar Mandal, is hostile witness; PW-9 is Gyanendra Sharma, Who is investigating officer of the case; PW-10 is Ratilal Marandi;PW-11 is Prabhu Hansda @ Marandi and PW-12 is Lalita Kumari, who is sister-in- law of the deceased. 6. PW-3 Faguni Devi is the informant of the case and mother of the deceased. Informant has stated in her evidence that her daughter Laxmi Devi was married to Pradeep Thakur five years ago and she led a happy life in her matrimonial home for about one year. But, thereafter, husband of her daughter, father-in-law and mother-in-law started demanding money and ornaments. She did not fulfill the demand then they killed her daughter and came to her home with her daughter and then her daughter was taken to Bengabad for treatment where her daughter was declared dead. In her cross-examination informant has stated that one month prior to the occurrence she had gone to the matrimonial home of her daughter. Informant further stated that her son-in-law had demanded money from her daughter, before the death of her daughter. 7. PW-1 Aarti Devi is the sister of the deceased. PW-1 has stated in her evidence that her sister Laxmi was married to Pradeep Thakur seven years ago. She lived peacefully in her matrimonial home for two years. But, thereafter, her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law started torturing her. Her father had given 02 decimal land to Pradeep Thakur, in spite of that they started demanding Rs. 50,000/-. Her sister used to tell that the accused persons had assaulted her. On 08.06.2014, the accused persons took her to Bengabad, where she was declared dead by the doctor. In her cross-examination PW-1 has stated that she cannot tell the date of demand of Rs. 50,000/-. 8. PW-4 is Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh, who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. Doctor had found- (i) Rigor mortis was present all over the body. In her cross-examination PW-1 has stated that she cannot tell the date of demand of Rs. 50,000/-. 8. PW-4 is Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh, who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. Doctor had found- (i) Rigor mortis was present all over the body. Froths was found coming out from nostrils. (ii) On examination no injury was found. (iii) On dissection-Viscera is congested. Heart-right chamber blood, left chamber empty. Uterus-N.A.D. Bladder-empty, lungs-voluminous on cut exude frothy blood. (iv) Trachea- Mucosa congested with fine froths (v) Time since death-approximately within 24 hours Doctor opined that cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning. Doctor has proved the P.M. report which was marked as Ext.-2 9. PW-2 is Dharmjit Prasad and PW-2 has stated in his evidence that deceased was married to Pradeep Thakur about five years ago and she lived happily in her matrimonial home for some days, but, thereafter, accused persons started torturing her for demand of dowry and ornaments. PW-2 has identified the written report and he stated that he had written the written report which is in his handwriting. The written report was marked as Ext.-1. 10. PW-7 Chhotu Kumar Mandal and PW-7 has stated in his evidence that on the date of occurrence he was playing Carrom Board along with his friends at about 2:00-02:30 p.m. In the meantime, Lalita Kumari (PW-12) came and told that her bhabhi had fallen into the well. They went to the well and took her out from the well and then she was taken to the hospital. In his cross-examination PW-7 stated that he is neighbour of the accused persons and he never heard or saw any quarrel in between deceased and her in-laws. The wood kept on well was rotten due to which wood broke and deceased fell into the well. 11. PW-12 is Lalita Kumari, who is sister-in-law of the deceased. PW-12 has stated in her evidence that deceased was married to her brother eight years ago. On the date of occurrence at 03:00 p.m. her bhabhi had gone to wash the burnt coal with her. They kept the coal at the well and they went for natures call and when her bhabhi came back, she was drawing water from the well. In the meantime, the wooden log kept on well broke and her bhabhi fell into the well. They kept the coal at the well and they went for natures call and when her bhabhi came back, she was drawing water from the well. In the meantime, the wooden log kept on well broke and her bhabhi fell into the well. Then on her halla, people of the locality came there and took her bhabhi out of the well and she was alive at that time. She was taken to the hospital by her brother and family members where she was declared dead. In her cross-examination PW-12 has stated that there was no dispute in between her brother and bhabhi rather they begotten a daughter, who is 5 years old and is still living with her brother. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and the informant PW-3 and submitted that there was unnatural death not under normal circumstances; death occurred within five years of marriage; dowry demand is proved and there was no good relationship between the parties due to demand of dowry. Learned counsel further submitted that dowry demand has not been denied anywhere in cross-examination and death occurred within the house as she was alive after being pulled out of the well and there is no good explanation for her death. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that all this would lead to presumption under section 113 B of Indian Evidence Act, and hence, the judgment of acquittal is not sustainable and should be set-aside and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 may be appropriately convicted and sentenced. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, the learned counsel for the State submitted that in paragraph no. 18 of the impugned judgment it is indicated that in the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer PW-9 that none of the villagers stated that the deceased was pushed into the well. 14. Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, the learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the evidence of all the independent witnesses and submitted that none of them have supported the case of prosecution and deposed that wood of the well was weak. The learned counsel further submits that the deceased stepped on the weak wood, which broke and the deceased fell into the well which finally led to her death. The learned counsel further submits that the deceased stepped on the weak wood, which broke and the deceased fell into the well which finally led to her death. The learned counsel particularly referred to the evidence of PW-12 Lalita Kumari, who is sister-in-law of the deceased, who has also not supported the prosecution case. The learned counsel has further referred to the evidence of PW-5 Bhunna Mandal, who has deposed that wife of Pradeep Thakur fell into the well and she was taken out from the well and from there she was sent to hospital for treatment. In his cross-examination, PW-5 has deposed that the deceased had good relation with members of matrimonial home. Conclusion 15. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondents and the learned counsel for the state and also gone through the facts and evidences of the case. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 to set-aside the judgment of acquittal. PW-1 is Aarti Devi and she is the sister of the deceased, PW-2 Dharmjit Prasad is the Homeopathic doctor and PW-3 is Faguni Devi, who is the informant and the mother of the deceased. PW-3 and PW-1, both mother and sister of the deceased can be said to be directly related witnesses and they are the persons who should be knowing well the facts and circumstances of the case and PW-1 and PW-3 have sought to support the prosecution case but have not given any date regarding the demand of dowry and assault which was made. PW-3 has deposed that incident has not occurred before her eyes and her son-in-law or respondent no.1 Pradeep Thakur, used to bear expenses of her daughter and that even the expenses for post-death rituals were borne by the husband of her daughter. PW-2 is the Homeopathic Doctor, who in his cross-examination deposed that police had not questioned him and he had not seen any injury on the body of the deceased and he had neither gone to the hospital nor he was involved in the post-death rituals. 16.(i) PW-4 is the doctor, who had conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and doctor has deposed that on examination no injury was found and opined that cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning. 16.(i) PW-4 is the doctor, who had conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and doctor has deposed that on examination no injury was found and opined that cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning. PW-12 is the sister-in-law of deceased and she has deposed that on the fateful day both of them had gone to the well to wash burnt coal. Thereafter, they left coal at the well and had gone to attend nature's call. She further deposed that when they returned, the deceased tried to extract water from the well and then the wood on which she had kept her feet at the well broke and the deceased fell into the well and, thereafter, she made alarm. On her alarm nearby people came and her bhabhi was taken out and at that time she was alive. She has further deposed in her cross-examination that when the deceased was taken out from the well she was alive and when she was taken to the hospital the mother of the deceased and the brother-in-law of the deceased had also gone with them. (ii) PW-6 is Ashok Yadav and he is co-villager of the respondents and PW-7 is Chhotu Kumar Mandal, who is neighbour of the respondents and both are independent witnesses. Both PW-6 and PW-7 have stated in their evidence that on the day of occurrence they were playing Carrom Board, then, PW-12 Lalita Kumari, came and informed them that her bhabhi has fallen into the well. Then both PW-6 and PW-7 rushed towards the well and rescued the deceased. Further, both PW-6 and PW-7 have stated that when deceased was taken out of the well, she was alive. PW-7 has in his cross-examination deposed that he had neither seen in-laws of the deceased quarreling with her nor heard about demand for dowry. PW-7 has also deposed that there was a wood at the well and that wood had rotted and deceased had put her feet on that wood and was extracting water and the wood had broken due to which the deceased fell into the well. PW-7 has also deposed that there was a wood at the well and that wood had rotted and deceased had put her feet on that wood and was extracting water and the wood had broken due to which the deceased fell into the well. Even other independent witness such as PW-5, who is Bhunna Mandal in his cross-examination deposed regarding good relationship between the parties and that he had never heard that in-laws had demanded dowry and harassed the deceased and incident took place due to breaking of rotten wood during drawing of water from the well by the deceased. (iii) Further, PW-10 and PW-11 are labourers and both are independent witnesses and they have stated in their evidence that on the day of occurrence they were digging well nearby the place of occurrence and on hearing halla they went to the well and took out the deceased from the well. Both, PW-10 and PW-11 have stated that when deceased was taken out from the well, she was alive. 17. PW-9 Gyanendra Sharma, who is the Investigating Officer of the case, in his cross-examination has deposed that during examination nobody had told him that the accused persons had pushed the deceased into the well. 18. Therefore, we see that independent witnesses have clearly deposed that relationship between the deceased and her husband was good and in fact the husband loved the deceased. Further from the evidences it is clear that the deceased had gone to get water from the well and she had put her feet on the rotten wood which had broken and she fell into the well and the doctor who had conducted autopsy over the dead body deposed that death was due to asphyxia caused by drowning. As regard to conduct of respondents in saving life of the deceased is concerned in the evidence it has also come that deceased was alive when she was taken out of the well. Even PW-1 Aarti Devi, who is the sister of the deceased has stated in her examination-in-chief that husband Pradeep Thakur (respondent no.1), father-in-law Tilak Thakur (respondent no.2) and mother-in-law (respondent no.3) had brought the deceased to their house by Bolero vehicle and from there she also accompanied to Bengabad, for treatment, where doctor had examined her. Even PW-1 Aarti Devi, who is the sister of the deceased has stated in her examination-in-chief that husband Pradeep Thakur (respondent no.1), father-in-law Tilak Thakur (respondent no.2) and mother-in-law (respondent no.3) had brought the deceased to their house by Bolero vehicle and from there she also accompanied to Bengabad, for treatment, where doctor had examined her. Further, in paragraph-7 of her cross-examination, PW-1 has deposed that husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law were saying to rush to hospital at Bengabad. Hence, from the evidence of PW-1 or the sister of the deceased also, it is clear that there was no negative role of the husband Pradeep (respondent no.2), father-in-law Tilak Thakur (respondent no.3) and mother-in-law (respondent no.4). 19. Therefore, based on the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal dated 13th December, 2019 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Giridih in S.T. Case No. 212 of 2015. 20. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.