The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed murder or subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand of dowry in order to establish a case under Section 304B IPC and the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT

Goverdhan Bardhar, J. - Heard on the application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 53 days in filing the criminal leave to appeal.

2. The application is accordingly allowed and the delay of 53 days in filing the criminal leave to appeal is condoned.

3. The instant criminal leave to appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the impugned judgement dated 15.06.2013 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui, District Dausa ('the learned trial court' for short), in Sessions Case No.51/2012 whereby accused respondent has been acquitted of the charges framed against him under Sections 302, 304B and 498A IPC.

4. In brief the factual matrix of the case is that complainant Gokul s/o Bhonri Lal (PW1), by caste Mali, resident of Poonya Ka Bas, Sikandara, Police Station Sikandara submitted a typed report (Ex.P1) to the SHO, Police Station Bandikui to this effect that he is resident of Sikandara. He solemnized the marriage of his both daughters; Manju and Lalita on 19.02.2009 with Raju and Rinku, both sons of Ganga Sahay s/o Khadka Mali, residents of Dhani Dehda, Tan Anantwada. Marriage of his daughter Manju was solemnized with Raju. In the marriage he gave all the household articles, utensils, box of iron, cot, clothes and in jewelry 'nath', teeka, tops, jantar, anklets, kanakti of silver, two tola gold and 750 gm. silver and Rs. 31,000/- in cash. After marriage, in the month of Janaury 2012, "gauna" of Manju was done with Raju. After 2-5 days of "gauna", Manju came to his house and told that her husband Raju, Ganga Sahay (father-in-law), Khyali (jeth), Kamli (mother-inlaw), Soma (jethani), Suman and Rinku (devar) used to pass on remarks in connection with dowry and made demand of Rs. 50,000/-. The complainant and his family members used counselling skills and advised Manju to adjust herself in the new family. After 2-4 days Raju came to bring Manju. Thereafter, Manju went to in-laws house. Afterwards, Manju remained for 20 days. On 15th April there was a function, so for inviting to attend the function when his brother's son went to take Manju, Raju, Ganga Sahay, Khyali, Kamli, Soma, Suman and Rinku behaved badly making complaint against Manju. They literally expelled her saying that if payment of Rs. 50,000/- is not made no-one will come to bring her. The applicant is a poor man, so he could not fulfill the demand of dowry by making payment of Rs. 50,000/- in cash to Raju and above-named other family members. The complainant further mentioned that after being counselled, Raju and his cousin's son came to take Manju, thus she went along-with them. But at that time it was told that payment of Rs. 50,000/- will have to be made. On 01.5.2012 there was a programme of unbutton (Jadoola) of his younger brother's son, in which Raju was also invited along-with Manju. On conversation, Manju told that since 27.04.2012 when she is here, Raju and his family members used to give beatings to her and in the programme of unbotton (jadoola) neither they are coming to attend nor permitting her to attend. Upon this complainant advised her not to come to attend the function against their will. As all of a sudden he would not be able to make arrangement of Rs. 50,000/-.

5. On 2.5.2012 at about 12:00 in the night Raju informed that Manju had died in the night. After hearing such news, the complainant and his family reached at Manju's inlaws At Anantwada. But before they reached, Raju and members of his family without giving information to the police and also without allowing others to see the dead body of Manju got her cremated. The complainant further mentioned that due to serious shock he could not lodge the report immediately. Therefore, today he is submitting the report. Thus action be taken.

6. On the basis of aforesaid typed report (Ex.P1), an F.I.R. No. 338/2012 was registered at Police Station Bandikui District Dausa for the offences under Sections 304B/498A IPC. After