R.B. MISRA, J.

(1.) Respondentaccused, Raghubir Singh has been brought in the custody of Head Constable Amrender Singh, No.64, in reference to order dated 24th July, 2010, however, the matter is being heard in presence of the accusedrespondent himself.

(2.) The present Criminal Appeal has come up for adjudication after the grant of leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of the Code of criminal Procedure has been granted in reference to judgment dated 8.12.1999, passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Solan, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 17A/7 of 1999, under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, acquitting the alleged accused/respondent.

(3.) The prosecution case is that Hemawati (victim / deceased) daughter of Sh. Roshan Lal, was married to the accusedrespondent and was found missing from the house and after four days her dead body was found lying in a Ghasni at a distance of about 5 km from village Takroli. The death was caused by poisoning and from the spot one shawl, rope, one empty bottle, one pair of chappals and some tablets were recovered. Mother of the victim / deceased, disclosed to the police that accused had demanded money from her on three occasions, which she had paid to him and he had threatened that in case money is not paid, she will not be able to see the face of her daughter. Mother of the victim / deceased made a complaint that her daughter was given beatings and was tortured, as such, the accusedrespondent was charged under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and the case was committed to the Sessions Court.

(4.) In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 prosecution witnesses. Whereas, the accused through his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., has denied the prosecution case. The accused in support of his case, has examined one witness in his defence.

(5.) It has been argued on behalf of the appellantState that the death of the victim / deceased had occurred within 3 years of marriage and in view of the statements of the parents of the victim / deceased coupled with the statement of Sh.Mohan Lal, an independent witness, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that the victim / deceased consequent upon cruelty, harassment and for demand of dowry has died in suspicious circumstances.

(6.) On analysis of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, we notice that the victim / deceased was married to accusedrespondent and after 3 years of marriage, she had died in suspicious circumstances and her body was recovered at a distance of about 5 km from village Takroli and the death was said to have taken place after consumption of poison.

(7.) PW.1 Roshan Lal, father of the victim / deceased, in support of the prosecution case has narrated that after about 89 months of the marriage, his daughter came to his house for a night alongwith the accusedrespondent and when they wanted her to stay back, she told that she will be given beatings by her husband if she stayed back. However, his daughter kept on coming to their house after a gap of 34 months and was usually telling that her husband was given beatings. On one occasion, in November, 1997 the victim / deceased made a complaint to her father that she was beaten, however, PW.1 mentioned that after the funeral of her daughter, he came to know that accusedrespondent had demanded money from his wife, namely, Savitri Devi (PW.2) and she paid him Rs.5000/ and Rs.2000/ on two occasions. Lastly, he demanded Rs.2000/ on 25th January, but his wife did not give money to him and then he threatened her with dire consequences. In crossexamination, PW.1 has disclosed that his daughter used to be tortured and beaten by the accused respondent. Thereafter, through supplementary statement recorded by the police, PW.1 has stated that money was demanded by the accusedrespondent from his wife and the same was paid by her thrice, such version made in cross examination goes contrary to the statement of PW.1 recorded in the Court, where PW.1 has stated that demand of Rs.2000/ made by the accused on 25th January, was not met by his wife and he consequently threatened her that he will kill Hemawati (victim / deceased). PW.1 has also mentioned in his cross examination that Rs.7000/ had been kept by his wife and she had not earlier disclosed to him about the demand made by her or the payment of money made to the accusedrespondent. PW.1 has also admitted that about 1 years prior to the death of his daughter, when PW.1 had gone to attend the marriage of sisterinlaw of the victim / deceased to her inlaws house, his daughter (Hemawati) had ran away from the house in his presence and jumped from a cliff and she was then taken to I.G.M.C. Shimla, however, PW.1 was not aware about the reason of such jumping of his daughter. However, PW.1 has denied that his daughter (victim / deceased) was not mentally stable and used to dance before the deities under some fits and was usually tearing her clothes running away from the house and had not control over her appetite. 7. PW.2 Smt. Savitri Devi, mother of the victim / deceased, in support of the prosecution case has stated that accusedrespondent once took Rs.5000/ from her and again after six months he demanded Rs.2000/ and she gave the said amount to him on both these occasions, however, on 25th January, when he demanded Rs.2000/ from her, the same was declined, as such, accusedrespondent threatened her that she will not be able to see her daughter, then she disclosed this fact to Mohan Lal of village Badal Goyala. On making her testimony, PW.2 has mentioned that her daughter told her about the torture and beatings by her husband. However, she has admitted that her daughter had jumped into a ditch after about 2 years of her marriage. PW.2, mother of the victim / deceased, however, has not divulged such aspect to her husband PW.1 Roshan Lal prior to the death of the victim / deceased. Such improved version and different story was brought only after the death of the victim / deceased and when PW.2 could have divulged said aspect to Mohan Lal PW.3, then reasons best known to PW.2, why she did not divulge such things to her husband (PW.1). Whereas, PW.3 Mohan Lal has stated that Smt.Savitri Devi came to him once and told that her soninlaw had taken Rs.7000/ from her and he was again demanded Rs.2000/ from her and on declining the same, the accused respondent threatened her with dire consequences.

(8.) In view of the testimony of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3, the prosecution has endeavoured to prove that such demand of dowry and torture said to have been made off and on, resulting into the death of the victim / deceased. We notice significant improvement in the version of PW.1 and more particularly in the version of PW.2, who has not divulged anything to her husband (PW.1) about the demand of dowry and behind his back making the payment of dowry to the accusedrespondent. The suspicion is created that when the demand of money was not met by the mother of the victim / deceased, she instead of having confidence in her husband, reported it to an ExPardhan i.e. Mohan Lal. Moreover, even when her daughter was missing for 4 days, she did not take her husband into confidence and did not tell him about the threatening by accused on account of the demand of money. The suspicion and the circumstances, taken to strengthen the prosecution version has also adapted when the victim / deceased has jumped from a cliff at the time of wedding in the inlaw's house of the victim / deceased more particularly in presence of PW.1 Roshan Lal. Taking into consideration the defence witness coupled with cross examinations of PW.1 and PW.2 and keeping in view the incident that the victim / deceased had jumped from the cliff, it could be inferred that the victim was not mentally stable and used to tear her clothes and dance before the deities, whenever, she was taken to the temple of Bagaini Devi. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that because of beatings or torture, off and on, if given at all, to the victim / deceased by the accusedrespondent and demand, if any, made

by PW.2, the victim / deceased committed suicide or her death has caused in a mysterious circumstances. (9.) In our considered view, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt to the accused and the learned Sessions Judge has carefully analyzed the prosecution witnesses and has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. In our considered view, there is no scope of interference in the findings given by learned Sessions Judge. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present criminal appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. (10.) In view of the dismissal of the present criminal appeal, the accusedrespondent is ordered to be released in this case forthwith, if not required any other process of law. (11.) The bail bonds furnished by the accused/respondent are hereby discharged.