JUDGMENT : (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Also, perused the trial court’s records. 2. This appeal against acquittal has been preferred by the informant who is father of the deceased (PW-5) for setting aside the judgment dated 18.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Vaishali at Hajipur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial court’) in Sessions Trial No. 205 of 2013 arising out of Rajapakar P.S. Case No. 30 of 2009 dated 02.03.2009 registered under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). Brief Facts of the Case 3. It appears from the trial court’s records that the FIR was registered by virtue of a direction issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali in exercise of his power under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) in Complaint Case No. 3685/08. The Complaint Case was filed by the informant (PW-5). In the complaint petition, it is alleged as under:- The informant’s daughter was married to this appellant in the year 2000 and after few days of marriage, the appellant and his family members started demanding one kattha of land in Hajipur as dowry. Due to non-fulfillment of the said demand, the informant’s daughter Babita was being abused and tortured physically and mentally. One Hajipur Town P.S. Case No. 220 of 2007 was registered under Section 498A IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In the said case, the appellant was granted bail by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 54767 of 2007 on 22.02.2008 after a compromise was made between the parties. It is alleged that after the compromise was made between the parties, the deceased went to her sasural from the Hon’ble Patna High Court itself. It is further alleged that even after compromise between the parties, Babita (daughter of the informant) was being subjected to cruelty and on the date of occurrence, the appellant and his family members killed her and tried to make it a suicide case by throwing her dead body in the well. When the son of the informant Ranjit Kumar went to Rajapakar on 08.12.2008 to investigate about the case, he was forced to sign on a blank paper. 4. When the son of the informant Ranjit Kumar went to Rajapakar on 08.12.2008 to investigate about the case, he was forced to sign on a blank paper. 4. After investigation of the case, police did not find sufficient materials to proceed against the accused persons, therefore, a final form was submitted vide Final Form No. 37 of 2010 dated 30.04.2010. 5. P.W.-5 lodged a protest against the submission of final form whereafter the learned Magistrate treated the protest petition as a complaint and registered the same as Complaint Case No. 558 of 2011 in which inquiry was conducted under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Later on, cognizance was taken and the records were committed to the court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 205 of 2013. Findings of the learned trial court 6. The trial court framed charges against the sole accused Arvind Kumar Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/34 and 302/34 IPC. The contents of the charges were explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. On behalf of the prosecution, as many as six witnesses were produced and two documents only could be marked. Exhibit ‘1’ is the signature of the complainant on the protest petition and Exhibit ‘2’ is the postmortem report of the deceased. The defence examined four witnesses and proved the statement of Kuldeep Rai (PW-5) recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as Exhibit ‘A’ and the ordersheet of Trial No. 598 of 2008 in sixteen pages as Exhibit ‘A/1’. 8. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused-appellant explained that he is innocent and after compromise in Hajipur Town P.S. Case No. 220 of 2007, he was living happily with his wife and both were living a happy conjugal life. He further explained that on 08.12.2009, his wife went to defecate but did not return. Her dead body was found in the well. 9. The learned trial court perused the evidences available on the record. In course of trial, Deonarayan Rai (PW-1) who is the uncle of the deceased has stated that he heard about the demand of dowry of one kattha of land. He had gone to the place of occurrence and had seen the dead body of his niece. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he had seen the dead body at the Rajpakar Police Station. 10. He had gone to the place of occurrence and had seen the dead body of his niece. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he had seen the dead body at the Rajpakar Police Station. 10. Ranjeet Kumar (PW-2) is the brother of the deceased. He has deposed that he had seen the dead body at the place of occurrence. According to him, the marriage was solemnized in the year 2000 and at the time of postmortem, he was present. 11. Nawal Rai (PW-3) deposed that Babita Devi was murdered by this appellant, Ram Balak Singh, Sunita Devi, Mamta Devi and Panna Devi by throwing her in well. He had also seen the dead body at the Rajapakar Police Station at 11-12 O’ Clock. 12. Ram Pravesh Rai (PW-4) has stated that he had gone to the Rajapakar Police Station where the dead body of Babita was kept and the accused was confined in the police station. He is a constable in the home guard and seldom comes to his village. He is not related to the deceased of this case. 13. Kuldeep Rai (PW-5) made a statement in the police station itself and he had also seen the dead body. He has stated in paragraph ‘15’ of his deposition that he had participated in the cremation of the dead body and in the cremation, the family members of the appellant as well as the villagers were present. He has further stated that he had lodged a case after 2-4 days from the date of his participation in the cremation. 14. The Doctor who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased has deposed as PW-6 who has stated that he conducted the postmortem on the dead body. According to his deposition, no external injury except nosal bleeding due to fracture of nosal bone could be found. The head and neck scalp bone, mearigens and brain tissues were intact. In his opinion, the cause of death was due to drowning and the death had taken place within twenty four hours. 15. On behalf of the defence, the witnesses have stated that the victim had fallen in the well, they had run to save the victim. It was a dark night. The said well is situated at a distance of 25-30 yards east to the house of the accused. 16. 15. On behalf of the defence, the witnesses have stated that the victim had fallen in the well, they had run to save the victim. It was a dark night. The said well is situated at a distance of 25-30 yards east to the house of the accused. 16. The learned trial court having examined the materials on the record found that in the trial court, the victim had appeared in connection with Hajipur Town P.S. Case No. 220 of 2007 after grant of bail to her husband in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 54769 of 2007 dated 20.02.2008 and she had made statement before the court on 09.05.2008 as also on 03.06.2008 that she was living happily with her husband. The victim had not raised any grievance against her husband. In the ordersheet, the date on which she died is recorded as 02.03.2009 but learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is a typographical error and the correct date would be night of 7/8th December, 2008. 17. The learned trial court has recorded that during investigation of Rajapakar P.S. Case No. 30 of 2009, the statement of the informant has been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which has been exhibited on behalf of the defense. In his statement, the informant has stated that the matter had been pacified and he filed a petition in which he stated that he did not want to pursue the case. The trial court has found that the prosecution witnesses on the point of charge have only seen the dead body and have brought the factum of death of the victim in the house of the accused. No one from the place of vicinity was examined to support that the victim was being subjected to torture after her return to in-laws place after settlement of the dispute with her husband. In fact, it is otherwise, the defence witnesses are the witnesses of vicinity who have stated that the victim died due to an accidental falling in the well. The postmortem report did not suggest any sign of external injury which could cause the death. 18. In such circumstances, the learned trial court has acquitted the appellant-accused and discharged him from the liability of bail bond. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant 19. Mr. The postmortem report did not suggest any sign of external injury which could cause the death. 18. In such circumstances, the learned trial court has acquitted the appellant-accused and discharged him from the liability of bail bond. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant 19. Mr. Abhishek, learned counsel for the appellant has mainly submitted before this Court that the learned trial court has not at all considered the charge under Section 498A IPC and has not appreciated the entire materials on the record keeping in view the evidence of PW-5 who is father of the deceased and has stated in paragraph ‘4’ of his evidence that even after settlement, the demand of dowry and the torture to his daughter continued. 20. Learned counsel submits that no doubt, the charge was framed under Section 302/34 IPC, the marriage was solemnized about nine years ago, the circumstances would irresistibly suggest that it was a case of killing of the daughter of the informant (PW-5) and it was due to non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry. Submissions on behalf of the State 21. On the other hand, Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that in this case, the learned trial court has carefully scrutinized the entire materials on the record and has discussed the evidences of the prosecution/complainant witnesses. There is no evidence on the point of killing of the daughter of PW-5. In course of evidence, the prosecution exhibited only the signature of the complainant on the protest petition and the postmortem report of the deceased. Even the entire protest petition was not exhibited. It is submitted that the most important witness in this case is the informant himself who has deposed as PW-5. His conduct is worth taking note of which would appear from the statements made by him in his cross-examination in paragraphs ‘13’, ‘14’ and ‘15’. He had made his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which was exhibited on behalf of the defense as Exhibit ‘A’. This witness had participated in the cremation and last riots of the victim and only after 2-4 days, he lodged a complaint case which was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. He was suggested in course of his cross-examination that because the accused persons did not fulfill his illegal demands, he was deposing in this case even after entering into a compromise. It is submitted that the learned trial court has relied upon the judicial records which are the ordersheets of the court in which the statement of the victim was recorded only few months back wherein she had stated that she was living happily and leading a conjugal life with her husband. It is, thus, submitted that the learned trial court has not committed any error and no interference is required with the impugned judgment. Consideration 22. We have, besides hearing learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, perused the trial court’s records. 23. We find that the learned trial court has dealt with the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses in detail. We have also gone through the deposition of all the prosecution witnesses and have taken note of their statement hereinabove. It appears to us that the most important witness in this case is the father of the deceased, namely, Kuldeep Rai who has deposed as PW-5. He has though stated in paragraphs ‘3’ and ‘4’ of his deposition that after settlement with her husband, his daughter had directly gone to her sasural from the High Court itself, but even thereafter the demand of dowry continued. He has stated that her husband assaulted her and pushed her in the well as a result whereof she died but we find from Exhibit ‘A/1’ i.e. the ordersheet of the Trial No. 598 of 2008 that the victim had appeared before the learned Magistrate and she had specifically stated that she was living happily with her husband. No grievance was raised by her. On the face of this evidence, in form of the ordersheet of the court, we cannot attach much evidenciary value to the statement of PW-5. 24. Further, we find from the conduct of PW-5 that this witness cannot be wholly relied upon because at different point of time he has shown different conduct. According to his own deposition, he had seen the dead body of his daughter, he had participated in the cremation and he states that the family member of the accused as well as the villagers were present in the last riots of the victim. He does not say that he had seen any sign of torture on the dead body. According to his own deposition, he had seen the dead body of his daughter, he had participated in the cremation and he states that the family member of the accused as well as the villagers were present in the last riots of the victim. He does not say that he had seen any sign of torture on the dead body. The Doctor (PW-6) has not found any external injury except a nosal bleeding due to fracture of nosal bone and he has categorically deposed that the death took place due to drowning. PW-5 lodged the case only 2-4 days after her participation in the last riot of his daughter and thereafter he had made statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which he had shown his non-inclination in pursuing the matter. In such circumstance, the stand of the defence as suggested in the cross-examination of PW-5 that he was deposing because his illegal demand could not be fulfilled cannot be discarded and it is required to be given consideration together with the evidence of the defence witnesses. 25. Having analyzed the materials available on the record, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial court has not committed any error in appreciation of the evidences on the record. There being no infirmity with the impugned judgment, this appeal is dismissed.