JUDGMENT :

Saroj Yadav, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant-State of U.P. against the judgment and order dated 2.12.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 1, District Kheri in Sessions Trial No. 797 of 2003 under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short I.P.C.) and Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act (in short D.P. Act), whereby the accused/respondents were acquitted.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal as culled out are as under:

i. A First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) was registered at Case Crime No. 443 of 2002 under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 of I.P.C. and Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act on the basis of written report submitted by the complainant Mustakim. it was described in the written report that the complainant married his daughter Parvin aged about 24 years in June 1996 to Lallan son of Asgar. After the marriage Lallan and other family members i.e. Asgar (mother-in-law) Sahnoor (Jeth), Khanney (jeth), Laddan (dewar), wife of Sahnoor (jethani) and wife of Khanney (jethani) started complaining about the less dowry given in the marriage and used to demand Passion Motorcycle. The complainant gave dowry in the marriage according to his status and capacity, but due to scarcity of money he could not give motorcycle. For this reason, Lallan and other family members used to beat his daughter. Just eight days ahead of the incident Lallan came to take his daughter and when he left the house of the complainant he asked him to arrange the motorcycle within eight days otherwise that will not be good. On 24.12.2002 at about 2:00 P.M. Vasir informed to the complainant that his daughter Parvin had died in the night. On this information he reached the matrimonial home of his daughter and found the dead body lying in the home and all accused persons fled away. Only the mother-in-law of the deceased was present there. The villagers and Gram Pradhan who were present there tried to allure him by offering Rs. 20 thousand and not to report to the police, when complainant refused the offer, they did not even gave the dead body to him. Thereafter the complainant went to the police station Oel district Kheri, but his report was not lodged and he was asked to present a written report that his daughter was killed by the accused persons in the night of 23/24.12.2002.

After investigation the charge-sheet was submitted against all the accused persons in the Court. The concerned Magistrate after taking cognizance committed the case to Sessions Court for trial. Sessions Judge framed the charges against all the accused persons on 7.7.2004. All the accused persons denied the crime and claimed to be tried.

In order to prove its case the prosecution examined the following witnesses :

(i) PW-1 Mustakim, complainant.

(ii) PW-2 Mubarak Ali, brother of the deceased

(iii) PW-3 Mr. Vijay Vardhan Tomar, Naib Tehsildar who prepared the inquest report and send the dead body for post-mortem alongwith necessary police papers

(iv) PW-4 Dr. A.K. Malik, who conducted the post-mortem on the cadaver of the deceased.

Apart from the above oral evidence, documentary evidence Exhibit-Ka 1 to Exhibit Ka-9 were also proved. These exihibits are as under :

(i) Exhibit Ka-1, written report.

(ii) Exhibit Ka-2 inquest report.

(iii) Exhibit Ka-3 Police Form 13.

(iv) Exhibit Ka-4 Police Form 33.

(v) Exhibit Ka-5 Photo Nash.

(vi) Exhibit Ka-6 report of R.I.

(vii) Exhibit Ka-7 report to C.M.O. for conducting post-mortem.

(viii) Exhibit-Ka-8 specimen seal.

(ix) Exhibit Ka-9 post-mortem report.

After close of evidence by prosecution the statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.), wherein they denied the crime and stated that marriage of the deceased with Lallan was solemnized in the year 1995 and the deceased was ill, so she committed suicide by hanging. Accused Lallan examined herself as DW-1 after seeking permission of the trial Court and proved two docum