The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the right of the accused to the benefit of doubt, and the need for evidence to be cogent and reliable.

Judgment:

B.D. Rathi, J.

1. The present judgment shall govern the disposal of both the cases (Cri. A. No. 103/1999 and Cri. A. No. 507/2003). Criminal Appeal No. 103/1999 under Section 374 of the Code has been preferred by the appellant/accused against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11-2-1999 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in S.T. No. 93/1998 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. Criminal Appeal No. 507/2003 under Section 378 of the Code has been preferred by the State against the same judgment whereby respondents (remaining accused persons) have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 304B of Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC"). The prosecution case in brief, is that the marriage of accused Dileep and Kalpana had taken place on 26-5-1994 at Bhind. After marriage, Kalpana started living at Village Kanathar and prior to death, she was living at the matrimonial house situated at Mehgaon, District Bhind. During life time and prior to this case, on the written report of Kalpana (Exh. P-16) made against her in-laws, the case for offence under Section 498A of IPC was also registered as Crime No. 123/1997 at Police Station, Mehgaon, District Bhind. The accusation of prosecution in this present case is that the accused persons used to demand dowry and on non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, the accused persons have started harassing Kalpana mentally and physically. On the information given by mother of deceased, Rampyari (P.W. 7) in regard to unnatural death of Kalpana due to burn injuries, Merg No. 19/1997 was registered on 20-7-1997 and soon thereafter, the then SDO (P), Mehgaon reached at the place of incident. Upon enquiry in the Merg, FIR (Exh. P-12) was lodged at Crime No. 199/1997 at Police Station, Mehgaon, District Bhind for the offence punishable under Sections 304B and 34 of IPC on 10-8-1997. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons for the said offences.

2. During trial, the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges framed under Sections 304B and 34 of IPC and contended that they had been falsely implicated. It is imperative to note that the accused Patiram (father-in-law of deceased) had died during pendency of trial.

3. Leave to appeal sought by the State has been refused for other accused persons except present respondents. Respondent No. 1 (Ashok) has died during pendency of appeal, therefore, the names of all these persons have been deleted from the array of respondents/accused vide order dated 9-5-2011 and 10-10-2003. In this way, State appeal is being decided only for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

4. By preferring Cri. A. No. 507/2003, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the entire evidence and material available on record though the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by cogent and reliable evidence thus the Trial Court has committed error in acquitting the respondents/accused persons. Prayer was also made that the appeal be allowed and accused persons/respondent Nos. 2 and 3 be convicted and sentenced accordingly.

5. On the contrary, Shri Sandeep Kulshreshtha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3/accused submitted that the judgment of acquittal for the offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC is well-merited. Prosecution has completely failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, in acquittal no interference is called for. By supporting the contention of learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Shri Madhukar Kulshreshtha (Counsel in Cri. A. No. 103/1999) submitted that learned Trial Court has committed error in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC and sentencing him to suffer 10 years' RI as no case is made out against him.

6. To bring home the charges, pr