Rajiv Sharma, J.

This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 08.02.2017, rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 112 of 2011, whereby the respondent nos.1 to 3-accused, who were charged with and tried for the offences under Section 304-B of IPC, were acquitted.

2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that PW1 Harendra Singh, S/o Shri Udai Singh lodged an FIR on 23.01.2011 to the effect that his daughter Priyanka Pal’s marriage was solemnized on 10.12.2009 with accused Sandeep. He has given the dowry according to his capacity. However, after few days, her husband Sandeep, father-in-law Bhundiya Singh and mother-in-law Smt. Harpali Devi started harassing his daughter for bringing insufficient dowry. After one month, his daughter and son-in-law came to his house. They stayed there for two days. His son-in-law demanded Rs.10.00 lacs for the construction of house within 10-15 days. He has shown his inability to pay the money. His daughter insisted him to pay Rs.10.00 lacs otherwise, they would kill her. He persuaded his daughter to go back. He and his relations were informed by his daughter about the demand of dowry. Thereafter, a number of times Priyanka has informed him that her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law were harassing her and she was treated with cruelty by her in-laws and forcing her to commit suicide. He received a telephonic call from his daughter on 23.01.2011 at 9:30 AM insisting him to come to Haridwar otherwise they would kill her. Thereafter, the phone got disconnected. He reached the house of in-laws of his daughter at Shivalik Nagar. The dead body of his daughter was lying in the car bearing No. UP15 AM-7568. The body was taken to hospital. According to him, his daughter died due to poisoning and her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law were responsible for the same. Thereafter, the body was sent for postmortem examination. The postmortem examination was carried out by PW5 Dr. Ashok Kumar.

3. The investigation was carried out and the challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. The prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses in support of its case. The statements of the accused were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. They have denied the case of the prosecution. The accused have examined as many as four witnesses DW1 K.K. Aggarwal, DW2 Mamta Tyagi, DW3 Dr. Rajeev Kumar Sharma, DW4 Dr. Neera Chandra. The accused vide judgment dated 08.02.2017 were acquitted. Hence, this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel on behalf of the respondents has supported the judgment dated 08.02.2017.

5. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the judgment carefully.

6. PW1 Harendra Singh is the father of deceased. According to him, his daughter was married to Sandeep Kumar Pal on 10.12.2009.. He has agreed to give Alto car but they were insisting for Santro car. He accordingly gave Santro car. He spent Rs.15.00 lacs in the marriage. He has also borne the expenditure of his daughter towards her B.Ed. education. His daughter also visited his house. She told him that she was harassed for bringing insufficient dowry. He had a conversation with the in-laws of his daughter. He also received a telephonic call after 3-4 months and his daughter again told him that her in-laws were demanding Rs.10.00 lacs. He also informed PW3 Mahaveer Singh. The accused were residing in one house. One month back his son-in-law has come to his house. He has demanded Rs.10.00 lacs and told that he would return the same. He also pledged his wife’s jewllery with Goyal Jeweller and arranged Rs.1.00 lac and the same was paid to Sandeep. He received a telephonic call from his daughter on 23.1.2011 at 9:30 AM asking him to come immediately otherwise her in-laws would kill her. Thereafter, he asked his younger daughter to talk to