1. - There is delay of 04 days in preferring the present application. For the reasons mentioned in the application submitted under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the delay of 04 days in filing present application for Leave to Appeal is condoned. Therefore, the application is being decided on merits. The instant application for Leave to Appeal by the State of Rajasthan is directed against the judgment dated 19th August 2014 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Barmer {herein after 'the trial court'} in Sessions Case No.41/2014 (44/2014) whereby the accused has been acquitted of charges under sections 498, 304B alternatively 302 IPC.

2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that complainant Atma Ram submitted a written report (Ex.P1) on 21.03.2014 in Police Station Ramsar stating therein that his daughter Hastu was married to accused Prahlad Ram about three years ago according to Hindu rites and since then she has been residing with her husband Prahlad Ram at her matrimonial home at Taraniyon Ki Dhani, Setrau. However, her husband, elder mother-in-law (badi saas), father-in-law and brother-in-law used to harass her for dowry. She had also come home and told him that her inlaws are demanding money and harrassing her for dowry. On 20.03.2014 Gemra Ram, Lekhu Ram, Smt Fanti and Prahlad Ram together killed his daughter and threw her in underground water-tank. At 6PM in the evening they were informed by Ramsar Police Station and they came on the spot. When dead body was taken out injury marks were seen on the body. Police was asked to take action. Thereupon FIR No.16/2014 for offences under sections 498A, 304B IPC was registered.

3. The accused Prahlad Ram husband of the deceased was charged for offences punishable under sections 498A, 304B IPC alternatively under section 302 IPC. The accused denied the charges and sought trial. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses including PW1 Atma Ram, PW2 Kinka, PW3 Sanga Ram, PW4 Kheta Ram, PW5 Amra Ram, PW6 Hukma Ram, PW7 Alu Ram, PW8 Urja Ram, PW9 Dr Kalu Ram Vishnoi, PW10 Rau Ram and PW11 Kishan Singh and produced documents Exhibits P1 to P23. The accused in his statement under section 313 CrPC denied the allegations. He, however, did not lead any evidence in defence.

4. Before adverting to the evidence on record, it would be necessary to refer to Section 304B IPC and Sections 113-A and 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, which are reproduced herein after:

"304B, IPC: Dowry death.- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

Explanation.-For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life."

"113-A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman- When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.

Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" shall have the same meaning as in section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

113-B. Presumption as to dowry de