P. Diwaker, J.

1. In this appeal the appellant State has assailed the judgment of acquittal dated 4.3.2005 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (CG) in Sessions Trial No.427/03 acquitting the respondents herein of the charges under Sections 306, 304(B), 498A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC').

2. As per prosecution case, marriage of respondent No.2 herein was solemnized with deceased Sangeeta on 11.2.2000 and she died on 7.10.2003 at her matrimonial home in suspicious circumstances. Enquiry was conducted by the police and it was found that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by her husband and his relatives for demand of dowry. After enquiry, FIR (Ex.P-11) was registered against the respondents herein on 10.1.2003 under Sections 498A & 306/34 IPC. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against them under the aforesaid sections, however, the Court below framed the charges under Sections 498A, 304B & 306 of IPC. So as to hold the accused/respondents guilty, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses. Statements of the accused/respondents were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. They have also examined one defence witness namely Surendra Sharma (DW-1).

3. After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the material available on record, the trial Court by the impugned judgment, acquitted accused/ respondents of the charges levelled against them. Hence this acquittal appeal by the State.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that;

the trial Court has erred in law in acquitting the accused/respondents as there are ample evidence showing their involvement in the crime in question.

the trial Court has erred in law in disbelieving the statements of PW-2, PW-3 & PW-4.

once the witnesses have deposed that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry, there was no reason for the trial Court to disbelieve their statements.

ingredients of Section 304B, 306 & 498A of IPC are fully attracted to the case in hand as the deceased died an unnatural death that too within seven years of marriage and there was cruelty for demand of dowry as well.

that after recording a perverse finding the court below has acquitted the accused/respondents which is not permissible under the law.

5. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal and submitted that

there is no direct evidence showing involvement of respondents in the crime in question.

the trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence with greater degree of caution and only then the finding of acquittal has been arrived at.

the view taken by the trial Court is one of the plausible and possible leading to acquittal of accused/respondents and therefore no interference is called for.

there is no evidence to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for dowry soon before her death or there was any demand of dowry from the respondents making them liable for the offence under Sections 304B or 498A IPC.

the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the necessary ingredients of Section 306 IPC to hold that the respondents abetted the commission of suicide.

Lastly, he submits that considering the fact that the appeal is against the judgment of acquittal, scope for interference is very limited.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. Smt. Anima Rai (PW-1) is the witness of inquest Ex.P-2.

8. Pradeep Kumar Rai (PW-2) is the father of deceased. He has stated that the accused persons kept her daughter happily for two months and thereafter they started harassing her. He has further stated that whenever he visited the matrimonial home of his daughter, his daughter used to tell him that that all the three accused persons used to taunt and harass her. He has further stated that the deceas