JUDGMENT :

Renu Agarwal, J.

1. This present appeal is filed by the State under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 13.05.1993 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi in Sessions Trial No. 163 of 1992 whereby acquitting the accused-respondent under Sections 498-A, 304B IPC read with Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Arval, District Hardoi.

2. Shorn off unnecessary fact, the FIR discloses that the cousin sister of complainant, namely, Sushila, was married to respondent-Virendra as per Hindu rites and rituals. Dowry was also given in the marriage but accused-respondent-Virendra, Mansa Ram and Smt. Marro, mother of the accused Virendra were not happy with the dowry given by the parents of the deceased. The accused was demanding motorcycle in dowry and on account of this demand, the accused-respondent sent back the complainant’s sister to her parental home. His cousin complained about the demand of dowry by accused-respondent and they tried to mediate the matter with accused-respondent but his cousin, namely, Sushila (now deceased) was not accepted by the accused-respondent without motorcycle. Later on, the deceased was sent to her in-laws house but she was being tortured on account of additional demand of motorcycle. Virendra, Mansa Ram and Smt. Marro murdered the complainant’s cousin Sushila by throttling and then the complainant and other family members reached to the matrimonial home of his cousin Sushila and found her lying dead in the north side of room of the house. The FIR of the incident was lodged on 20.01.1992 at about 11 a.m., the same was endorsed in GD No. 9 dated 23.01.1992 at about 9:10 a.m. and investigation was conducted by the Circle Officer Jang Raj Singh who recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared the site plan. The inquest was conducted by S.I. R.A Singh on 20.01.1992 at about 11:00 a.m. and dead body of the deceased was sealed and sent for post-mortem through Constable Dori Lal and Shiv Ratan. The post-mortem was conducted on 21.01.1992. The investigating Officer after collecting the necessary evidence, filed the chargesheet on 01.05.1993 in the Court.

3. Accused-respondent was summoned by the Magistrate and after the compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C., the accused were committed to Court of Sessions who framed the charges against the accused-respondent under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons. The accused persons denied from the charges and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution adduced PW-1 Sewa Ram and PW-2 Maiku as witnesses of fact. Following witnesses have proved the case :

(i) PW-1, Sewa Ram, the complainant of the case

(ii) PW-2, Maiku, father of the deceased.

5. No other witness is adduced in Court as the genuineness of all the documents of the prosecution was admitted by the learned defence counsel.

6. After the closure of the evidences, the accused-respondent was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the circumstances proved against them. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all the accused-respondent denied the charges levelled against them and stated that the complainant demanded the jewellery of the deceased from them, they denied to handover the jewellery of the deceased to complainant due to this animosity, they have been falsely implicated in the present case. All the witnesses are the family members of the deceased and they falsely implicated the accused persons in order to grab the jewellary of the deceased. The accused were provided opportunity to adduce their oral or documentary evidence in their defence which they denied.

7. After hearing both the learned counsel and perusal of the record, the learned trial court found that the evidence of witnesses is simply hearsay evidence and the witnesses, namely, Makrand, Rampal, Paatiram and Vishram Singh were not examined by the prosecution to prove the version of the FIR, t