Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

The learned counsel to the accused appellants submitted that instead of arguing on bail application, he will argue on merits of appeal itself to which the learned A.G.A. has agreed. Hence, heard Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

2. Both the criminal appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment, hence, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The prosecution version is that a first information report was registered in respect of a criminal incident and it was stated in the F.I.R. that the deceased Manisha was married with Dharmendra according to Hindu Rights and Rituals. The husband and the other relatives were not happy with the dowry and they demanded Rs.2 Lakhs and a motorcycle as additional dowry. They used to harass Manisha and she was not given food and was being threatened by the accused persons that if the additional dowry is not given, they will kill her. On 09.09.2016, at about 04:00 PM, one neighbour of the deceased informed that the deceased has been hanged by the accused persons. When the informant reached there, he saw Manisha hanging on ceiling fan and the accused persons were absconding from the house. The dead body was taken into custody by the police and was sent for post-mortem and after investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against the accused-appellants for the offence under Section 498A, 304B I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, charges were framed by the learned trial court for the offence under section 304-B and in the alternative under section 302 I.P.C., 498-A I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. The prosecution examined as many as five witnesses in support of its case. PW-1 is informant Satish who has proved his written report as Ext. Ka-1, photographs Ext. Ka-2&3, marriage card Ext. Ka-4 and has given statement regarding incident, PW-2 Smt. Golo is the mother and PW-3 Bana Singh is the father of the deceased who have turned hostile. PW-4 is Constable Reema Pal who has proved chick FIR Ext. Ka=5 and GD report Ext. Ka-6. Pw-5 is Dr. Anubhav Agarwal who has conducted the postmortem of the deceased and has proved postmortem report Ext. Ka-7 with other police papers Ext. Ka-7/1 to Ka-7/7. The accused-appellants, thereafter admitted the genuineness of the police papers.

5. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused persons have stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. they have also stated that the deceased was mentally disturbed. She was arrogant and she used to threaten for committing suicide. She was never harassed on account of demand of additional dowry. The accused persons did not give any evidence in defense.

6. After hearing the prosecution and defense and perusing the evidence on record, the learned trial court held all the accused persons guilty for the offence under Sections 306, 498-A IPC and under Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused persons were however acquitted under section 304-B, and alternative charge under section 302 IPC.

7. Aggrieved by the judgment, the accused-appellants have filed this appeal challenging the impugned judgment on the ground of being arbitrary, against law and evidence on record. The witnesses were hostile and they did not support prosecution case and the learned trial court wrongly invoked presumption under section 113-A of the Evidence Act. The impugned judgment is illegal and perverse and is liable to be set aside and the accused-appellants are entitled for acquittal.

8. Pw-1 Satish who is the informant in this case has proved has stated that when he reached the house of Manisha, he found her dead body was hanging tightened by a Saari from the ceiling fan. He informed the police and lodged FIR by submitting a written report which is Ext Ka-1. He stated that Manisha was his niece who lived with him. He took her to his pla