The prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and contradictory and unreliable evidence may lead to acquittal.

ORDER :

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 30.07.2016 recorded by the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) in the charge sheet, titled, “State vs Dalip Singh and others” arising out of FIR No. 09/2008 under sections 498-A, 306/34 RPC registered with Police Station, Kalakote, whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the charges for commission of above mentioned offences.

2. The judgment has been impugned by the appellant primarily on the ground that, despite the fact that the prosecution had led cogent and reliable evidence in respect of the commission of offences by the respondents, the learned trial court has erroneously acquitted the respondents by not appreciating the evidence in its right perspective.

3. Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that the grandparents and the parents of the deceased had categorically deposed about the cruel treatment meted to the deceased by the respondents and the respondents had not been able to rebut the evidence led by the prosecution but still the learned trial court acquitted the respondents.

4. On the contrary, Mr. Akash Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently argued that the prosecution had examined the neighbors of the deceased but the prosecution miserably failed to get any incriminating evidence against the respondents and further that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, who were near relatives of the deceased. He further argued that the scope of interference in the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is very limited and interference is warranted only when the opinion formed by the learned trial court is either perverse or implausible.

5. Heard and perused the record.

6. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are that an information was received from Police Control Room Rajouri at Police Station, Kalakote that a woman, namely, Anuradha wife of Dalip Singh resident of Tata Pani had been admitted in Government Medical College, Jammu on account of burn injuries. On receipt of this information, ASI Gupu Ram was sent to Jammu for recording the statement of victim but he could not record her statement as she was not fit to make any statement. Anuradha came to demise on 22.01.2008, pursuant to which inquest proceedings under section 174 Cr.P.C. were initiated in order to ascertain the cause of death. After recording the statements of the witnesses, the Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was suicidal in nature. Accordingly FIR No. 09/2008 was registered on 15.02.2008 under sections 306/34 and 498-A RPC against the respondents. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses and it was found that the deceased got married with respondent No. 1 three years prior to the incident. Ever since the marriage, the respondents used to taunt, harass and quarrel with the deceased for bringing less dowry. They used to demand Rs. 50,000/ from the deceased as her husband wanted to purchase motorcycle because his motorcycle was stolen. On 16.01.2008, the respondent No. 1 along with the deceased went to parental home of the deceased and demanded Rs. 50,000/- from her parents but they gave Rs. 5000/- only as they were not in a position to give Rs. 45,000/-. On 18.01.2008, Dalip Singh while returning home, asked them to send Rs. 45,000/- to his home. On 20.01.2008 at 4 PM, the respondent No. 3 Amrita Kumari alias Babli thrashed the deceased, as a result of which, at 8.30 PM, she herself put the dried grass on fire and jumped into the same, as a result of which, she got burnt. She was taken to Suderbani Hospital, from where she was referred to GMC Jammu where she succumbed to her burn injuries on 22.01.2008. The Investigating Officer proved the offences under sections 498-A and 306/34 RPC against th