RAJIV SHARMA, J.

State has come in the appeal against judgment and order dated 25.03.2010 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag in Sessions Trial No.13 of 2008 whereby the respondents-accused who were charged with and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B & 498-A of IPC, have been acquitted.

2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that PW-1 Rajeshwari-mother of the deceased had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag, stating therein that the marriage of her daughter Urmila @ Guddi was solemnized with respondent No.3-Jagdish Singh four years back according to Hindu customs and rites. Her husband-Bachan Singh was working in Delhi. They have given dowry in the marriage of her daughter according to their economic status. However, her daughter was harassed and tortured for bringing insufficient dowry by her husband including father-in-law, mother-in, elder brother and elder brother’s wife. This fact has brought to her notice by her daughter when she visited her parental house. She brought this fact to her husband at Delhi. In the month of November, 2007, her daughter was tortured for not brining motor cycle, T.V., Fridge and Rs.40,000/-. Her daughter came to the parental house but she persuaded her to go to back to her in-laws’ house on 02.02.2008. She received a communication on 08.02.2008 about the incident. She made an inquiry from her in-laws. The husband of her daughter told that Urmila @ Guddi died by burning stove. She informed her husband. She reached at the Base Hospital, Sri Nagar on 08.02.2008 at about 02.00 p.m. The accused/respondents were threatening her daughter not to disclose the true incident. According to contents of the report dated 15.02.2008, kerosene oil was poured upon her and she was set on fire. Thereafter, Post Mortem of the dead body was conducted by PW-6 Dr. Dr. R.K. Tamta. The matter was investigated and Challan was put up before the Court after completing all the codal formalities.

3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has produced as many as nine witnesses. The accused/respondents have produced two witnesses. The statements of accused/respondents were also recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. They have denied the case of the prosecution and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of the trial, respondents /accused were acquitted by the impugned order. Hence the present appeal.

4. Learned Dy. Advocate General appearing on behalf of State has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused/respondents.

5. Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents/accused has supported the impugned judgment dated 25.03.2010 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag in Sessions Trial No.13 of 2008.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the judgment and record carefully.

7. PW-1 Rajeshwari Devi is the mother of the deceased. She testified that the marriage of her daughter-Urmila @ Guddi (deceased) was solemnized with respondent No.3-Jagdish Singh four years ago. She was harassed by in-laws for bringing insufficient dowry. After marriage, her daughter came back at her parental house and told her that her husband and in-laws including father-in-law, mother-in-law, elder brother-in-law and wife of elder brother-in-law were demanding dowry. She informed her husband at Delhi that in-laws of her daughter were demanding dowry. Her husband came from Delhi after 2-4 days. He went to the in-laws’ house along with her daughter Urmila. He left his daughter and came back. He told that the behavior of in-laws was not up to mark. Thereafter, she was beaten due to which her eye was damaged. Her eye was operated upon. Her daughter came back to her parental house. She again informed her husband. Her husband met in-laws of his daughter and told that he was not in position to meet their demand of dowry. She went to the house