JUDGMENT : Mehta, J. 1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.12.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Parbatsar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) in Sessions Case No. 35/07(25/07), whereby the respondent – accused Salim @ Mohammed Salim has been acquitted of the charges under sections 304-B, 498-A and 302 (alternative) of Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts, as alleged by the prosecution and found by the court below are that the deceased Rukhsana married with the respondent – accused, alongwith her six months old daughter were found burnt in her house on 19.06.2007. Coming to know such incident, Iqbal, brother of the deceased immediately went to the police station and reported that his sister Rukhsana, who contracted marriage with the respondent-accused about seven years ago, has died because of burn injuries. 3. Thereafter, he lodged the written report on 21.06.2007, wherein he stated that his sister got married with the respondent – accused on 31.05.2003 and that the respondent – accused had been harassing her and pressurizing her to bring dowry; and on 17.06.2007 she was found dead after being burnt. While stating that 2 days before the incident his sister Rukhsana had come to her maternal home and asked her mother to give Rs.20,000/- as demanded by the respondent – accused, the complainant alleged that the accused had killed her sister by burning her. 4. After the investigation, the investigating officer filed the charge-sheet for the offences under sections 304-B and 498-A of Indian Penal Code accusing the respondent of harassing and coercing the deceased, due to which she had committed suicide. 5. After the charge-sheet was filed, the matter was committed to be tried by the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court on 08.10.2007 framed charges against the respondent – accused for the offence under sections 304-B and 498-A of Indian Penal Code by concluding that the deceased had committed suicide because of the dowry related harassment. Alternative charge was also framed alleging that the respondent – accused had ablazed the deceased Rukhsana and her daughter Muskan after pouring kerosene on them. A charge under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code was also framed against the respondent – accused. 6. The prosecution produced Abdul Rashid @ Khalil Ahmed (P.W.1), Mohammed Hussain (P.W.2), Gulam Fareed (P.W.3), Dr. Alternative charge was also framed alleging that the respondent – accused had ablazed the deceased Rukhsana and her daughter Muskan after pouring kerosene on them. A charge under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code was also framed against the respondent – accused. 6. The prosecution produced Abdul Rashid @ Khalil Ahmed (P.W.1), Mohammed Hussain (P.W.2), Gulam Fareed (P.W.3), Dr. Sageer Ahmed (P.W.4), Dayanand (P.W.5), Yaseen Khan (P.W.6), Pramod Kumar Swami (P.W.7), Ramji Lal (P.W.8), Mohd. Ayub (P.W.9), Smt. Khatoon (P.W.10), Mohammed Rafeeq (P.W.11), Umar (P.W.12), Hamida (P.W.13), Shakuran (P.W.14), Saidan (P.W.15), Jahoor Begam (P.W.16), Sarifan (P.W.17), Iqbal (P.W.18), Vikram Singh (P.W.19) and Narendra Singh (P.W.20) in witness box as prosecution evidence. 7. In his explanation given under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused asserted that he had never demanded the dowry and at the time of incident, he had gone with his daughter to a hospital and pleaded innocence. However, he had not produced any defence evidence. 8. The trial court having scanned the evidence and material acquitted the respondent – accused of all the charges, including section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 9. Mr. Ojha, learned Public Prosecutor argued that the learned trial court has erred in acquitting the respondent – accused in spite of the fact that the prosecution has produced enough oral evidence to show that the respondent – accused had married the deceased on 31.05.2003. He further submitted that all the witnesses had deposed before the trial court that the deceased Rukhsana was being harassed by the respondent – accused and used to demand dowry for which the deceased always remained under pressure. 10. While highlighting that Sarifan (P.W.17) had clearly stated that she and Rukhsana used to meet each other quite often and at 5:00 p.m. on the fateful day, when she went to the house of the deceased, the accused was quarrelling with the deceased for some issue and when she reached back home after 1 – 1½ hours, she heard the bad news of Rukhsana’s demise. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that the trial court has discarded testimony of prosecution witnesses only on the ground that they happened to be relative of the deceased. He argued that in the cases relating to dowry and matrimonial harassment, maternal relatives of the deceased/victim alone can have knowledge of the harassment, which was meted out to the deceased. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that the trial court has discarded testimony of prosecution witnesses only on the ground that they happened to be relative of the deceased. He argued that in the cases relating to dowry and matrimonial harassment, maternal relatives of the deceased/victim alone can have knowledge of the harassment, which was meted out to the deceased. He argued that the relatives’ testimony cannot be over-looked simply because the witnesses are related. 12. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that Sarifan (P.W.17), who was close to the deceased had clearly deposed that the deceased used to tell her about the constant harassment and the quarrel in which the accused used to indulge with the deceased. He, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the trial court is a complete misreading of the evidence and thus, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the prosecution witnesses, who had deposed that the respondent – accused used to harass and quarrel with the deceased for the purposes of taking dowry, were family members or relatives of the deceased. He submitted that so far as three prosecution witnesses are concerned, who can be said to be independent witnesses, namely Shakuran (P.W.14), Saidan (P.W.15) and Jahoor Begam (P.W.16) have turned hostile and they have not only denied the reason of death of the deceased, but also denied knowledge of any sort of harassment or demand of dowry by the respondent – accused. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent further argued that even if the testimony of prosecution witnesses is considered, then also there is clear contradiction in their testimony. He submitted that immediately after the incident i.e. 19.06.2007, when the complainant Iqbal reached the police station, he had stated that the deceased (his sister) had married the respondent – accused seven years ago, but later on while filing the written complaint on 21.06.2007, he gave the exact date of her marriage (31.05.2003). He submitted that all the other witnesses have given approximate time of marriage of the deceased and the accused. If the evidence is compared and considered in detail, it turns out that the marriage took place at least eight years before their marriage took place. 15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 16. He submitted that all the other witnesses have given approximate time of marriage of the deceased and the accused. If the evidence is compared and considered in detail, it turns out that the marriage took place at least eight years before their marriage took place. 15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 16. A perusal of the order impugned passed by the trial court shows that the trial court has considered the entire ocular and oral evidence led by the parties in its true perspective. Though, it has been observed that most of the prosecution witnesses are close blood relatives of the deceased, the trial court has not outrightly discarded their testimony. Learned trial judge proceeded to deal with the version of each of the witnesses in detail and has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove that the matrimony of the deceased and the respondent – accused was not less than seven years old. 17. It is pertinent to note that immediately on the date of incident (19.06.2007), the complainant being brother of the deceased lodged inquest that her sister has died because of burns and she had married the respondent – accused about seven years ago. While lodging such information, said Iqbal neither gave exact date of marriage nor had he expressed any apprehension regarding role of the respondent – accused. 18. According to us, had the brother known the date of marriage while giving inquest, he would have told the correct date of marriage (31.05.2003), whereas he had orally informed that their marriage took place seven years ago. It was only later on the complainant perhaps on the legal advise improved his version and given that the marriage of the deceased and the respondent –accused took place on 31.05.2003. 19. Since, there is completely different version regarding period of marriage in the inquest report dated 19.06.2007 and the written report dated 21.06.2007, in which the period of marriage has been shown to be about seven years and four years respectively, we are of the view that the first version of the complainant deserves to be given more credence. 19. Since, there is completely different version regarding period of marriage in the inquest report dated 19.06.2007 and the written report dated 21.06.2007, in which the period of marriage has been shown to be about seven years and four years respectively, we are of the view that the first version of the complainant deserves to be given more credence. In face of the fact that there is vast difference of years regarding period of marriage, we are of the view that the trial court has committed no error of law in rejecting the stand of the prosecution that by the date of death of deceased, her marriage life was less than seven years. 20. On surfing through the oral evidence led by the prosecution witnesses, we find that there is material difference in the version which has been aptly dealt with by the trial court. 21. The trial court has also considered the testimony of Sarifan (P.W.17), who used to live close to the deceased vis-a-vis the testimony of Hamida (P.W.13), who had said that the husband and wife were quarreling at 2:00 p.m., while Sarifan (P.W.17) had stated that they were quarreling at 5:00 p.m. The trial court has also found that in cross-examination, Sarifan (P.W.17) had accepted the fact that she had never seen the accused beating the deceased. 22. It is to be noted that the investigating officer (P.W.8) appeared in the witness box and deposed that he had found and seized a plastic Siphon and half burnt 5 litre Can containing kerosene, but existence of such things has not been shown in the site map. 23. Such being the position, the existence of plastic Siphon and 5 litre half burnt Can becomes really doubtful. 24. Pertinent it is to note that nobody has seen the incident and the neighbours etc. became aware of the incident/accident only when they saw fumes. The room where the deceased and her six months old daughter were found lying after severe burns, did not contain any door and there is no evidence to show that the main door of the house was closed or open. Nobody has been able to establish the presence of the respondent in or around the time of the incident. The room where the deceased and her six months old daughter were found lying after severe burns, did not contain any door and there is no evidence to show that the main door of the house was closed or open. Nobody has been able to establish the presence of the respondent in or around the time of the incident. It is correct that the respondent has failed to prove his alibi that he had gone to the hospital alongwith his daughter Muskan, but then the possibility of convicting the respondent -accused under section 302 of India Penal Code is ruled out. 25. In para No. 23 and 24 of the judgment, the trial court has discussed the evidence in detail to reach to a conclusion that the allegation of physical assault and demand of dowry has not been proved. True it is, that while disbelieving the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the trial court has given their proximity in their relationship to be one of factors against the prosecution but their testimony has not been discarded outrightly on such count. 26. It is to be noted that the investigating officer had filed the charge-sheet under sections 498-A and 304-B of Indian Penal Code, but while framing the charges, the trial court has framed the charge under section 302 of Indian Penal Code as well. 27. Since, the investigating officer had filed the charge-sheet under section 304-B and 498-A of Indian Penal Code, it was apparent that the investigating officer did not find it to be a case of murder and therefore, the charge-sheet did not contain any evidence worth the name pointing towards the commission of offence of murder by the respondent – accused. 28. Since, the charge-sheet and evidence filed therewith did not contain any incriminating material to bring home the charge of section 302 of Indian Penal Code, the trial court has rightly acquitted the respondent – accused of the charge under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 29. In view of the discussion foregoing, we do not find any legal or factual error or error in appreciating the evidence in the impugned order dated 11.12.2007. 30. The criminal appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 31. The impugned order dated 11.12.2007 passed by the trial court is affirmed.