The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the essential ingredients of 'dowry-death' beyond a reasonable doubt and the significance of non-demand of dowry by the victim's in-laws in reaching the decision to acquit the accused-respondents.

1. An F.I.R. was lodged by PW1 Rajeshwari against the accused-respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, on 29.10.1999 at P.S. Vikasnagar. According to PW1, her daughter Usha was married to accused-respondent Jagdish Prasad on 4.3.1999 according to Hindu rites and rituals. Her in-laws were not satisfied with the articles given in marriage. They started harassing Usha for want of bringing sufficient dowry. Her daughter asked PW1 that her in-laws were demanding Rs. 25,000/-. If their demand was not met, she would be killed. PW1 gave Rs. 2,000/-. The harassment continued unabated. In the intervening night of 27/28.10.1999, PW1 came to know that her daughter was killed. On 28.10.1999, PW 2 Ramesh Chandra Lakhera gave report (Ext-Ka-2), but when PW1 came to know that the victim was killed for dowry, therefore she addressed another application (Ext-Ka-1) to police station of Vikasnagar on 29.10.1999. Earlier Ramesh Chandra Lakhera (PW-2) gave a report to S.O. Vikasnagar informing the S.O. that Usha died. PW2 suspected that Usha died an unnatural death. Her father was posted in irrigation department in District Bahraich. According to PW2, the reason of death of victim could not be ascertained.

2. After the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused–respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304B I.P.C. and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began and prosecution opened it’s case, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304B I.P.C. and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 were framed against the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PW1 Rajeshwari (mother of deceased), PW 2 Ramesh (cousin of deceased), PW 3 Anandi Prasad (father of deceased), PW 4 Km. Rekha (cousin of deceased), PW 5 Om Prakash, PW 6 Dr. Bharat Kishor (pathologist) and PW 7 Smt. Vimla Sharma were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons in statements under section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which they said that they were falsely implicated in this case. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned trial court exonerated the accused persons of the charges leveled against them, vide impugned judgment and order dated 10.07.2001. Aggrieved against the same, present Government Appeal was preferred by the State.

3. PW6 Dr. Bharat Kishor conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased on 28.10.1999, at 4:15 P.M. The medical officer found a ligature mark on left side neck of deceased. No other injury was found on her body. Cause of death of deceased was asphyxia due to hanging.

4. The question which arises for consideration is, what made the victim to commit……….In such a situation, learned trial court did not commit mistake in acquitting the accused- respondents giving them benefit of a reasonable doubt. When two views are possible then the one which is in favour of the accused, should be accepted. No interference is called for in the impugned judgment and order.

5. It was a not a case of strangulation, but a case of hanging. The panches were of the opinion, in the inquest report, that the victim died of asphyxia. Whether it was a ‘dowry-death’ or not? PW 7 disclosed that victim’s father-in-law and mother-in-law told her that victim committed suicide. Victim died within seven months of her marriage.

6. PW1 said, among other things, that the sister-in-law of victim used to harass the victim. She was a widow. PW1 admitted that her son-in-law worked in a telephone company in Haryana. The son-in-law was against the employment of his wife (deceased). PW1 said that victim’s husband was annoyed with her and, therefore, he killed her. On the one hand, PW1 said that her in-laws demanded dowry, yet, on the other hand, she said that victim’s h