JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State against the judgment dated 09.07.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) & Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Special Sessions Case No.62/98, whereby the accused-respondents were acquitted of the offences under Sections 304-B & 498-A IPC, while extending them the benefit of doubt.

2. Learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State, at the outset, submits that vide order dated 30.04.2001 passed in the criminal leave to appeal, this Hon’ble Court granted leave to file the appeal only to the extent of accused-respondent No.1-Ram Singh, accused-respondent No.2-Dhur Singh and accused-respondent No.5 Smt. Shanti Devi, and thus, criminal leave to appeal qua remaining of the accused-respondents was not granted; accordingly, the present criminal appeal survived only qua accused-respondents No.1,2 & 5.

2.1 Learned Public Prosecutor however, submits that upon being informed about the demise of accused-respondent No.2-Dhur Singh and accused-respondent No.1-Ram Singh, the present appeal was dismissed, as having abated, qua respondents No.1 and 2. Learned Public Prosecutor thus, submits that the present criminal appeal now survives only qua respondent No.5-Smt. Shanti Devi. However, despite the order passed by this Hon’ble Court on 06.08.2021, the appellant-State has not filed the amended cause title, as yet.

2.2 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the learned trial court has erred in passing the impugned judgment of acquittal, as it suffers from a misreading of evidence of the testimonies of witnesses.

2.3 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the testimony of P.W. 1 Shri Gordhan Singh, that his daughter Meera (deceased/victim) was married to the deceased-accused/respondent Ram Singh on 11.04.1992 and that a sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage, yet after marriage, his daughter was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of more dowry.

2.4. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the deceased-victim, Meera, died under suspicious circumstances, and that when her father, the complainant P.W.1 visited her in the hospital, she was in a serious condition and that she pointed her fingers towards the accused-respondents. And that, the same is corroborated by the statements of P.W. 3 Ashu Singh.

2.5. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the PW-6 Punam Chand Bothra, stated on 29.05.1998, it was seen by him that fire was coming out of the house of the accused-respondent Dhur singh (deceased), who was father-in-law of the victim; he found that the door of the house was closed from inside and a woman (deceased-victim) was burning due to such fire; thereafter, the fire was extinguished and the deceased-victim was taken to the hospital.

2.6. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the deceased victim was put to fire by her husband and in-laws who demanded an additional dowry from her, and from a perusal of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the death of the deceased-victim occurred due to a mishap/accident caused, while she was ironing the clothes.

2.7. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the learned trial court has also not taken into consideration the testimony of PW-8 Dr. Ashok Parmar who stated that such a death could not have occurred by electric shock of the iron (istri).

2.8. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that a sufficient explanation has been given by the prosecution regarding the delay in filing of the F.I.R. but the same has not been considered by the learned trial court.

2.9. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the death occurred within 7 years of marriage, and therefore the offence squarely falls within the purview of Section 304-B I.P.C.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused-respondent submits that the incident in question occurred on 29.05.1998, whereas the complaint was lodged only on 06.06.1998 and that