Rajnesh Oswal, J.

1. This criminal acquittal appeal emerges out of the judgment dated 19.02.2013 passed by the court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) in case titled "State of J&K Vs. Girdhari Lal and others" whereby the sole surviving respondent and the deceased respondents were acquitted by the learned trial court of the charge for the commission of offence under Section 306 RPC.

2. The judgment has been assailed by the appellant on the ground that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence brought on record by the prosecution and has acquitted the accused/respondents erroneously.

3. Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, learned Dy. AG submitted that the prosecution has proved the case against the respondents beyond any reasonable doubt but the learned trial court by wrongly appreciating the evidence acquitted the respondents.

4. Mr. Arun Singh, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there was no evidence against the respondents that warranted the conviction of the respondents for the commission of offence under Section 306 RPC, as the essential ingredients constituting the offence under Section 306 RPC were not proved by the appellant.

5. Heard and perused the record.

6. The case projected by the prosecution is that on 05.09.2013 the complainant i.e. PW-1 Pritam Chand lodged a written report with the Police Station, R. S. Pura stating therein that he had solemnized the marriage of his daughter-Banso Devi with Girdhari Lal-accused, R/o Kotli, Shah Daula, Tehsil, R. S. Pura, District Jammu seven years ago and out of the said wed-lock, three children were born. After the marriage, the husband, mother in law and father in law of the deceased started beating and abusing her for not bringing sufficient dowry. She was harassed and because of the harassment she was very disturbed. She used to narrate the incidents to his wife (complainant's wife) whenever she used to come to his home. He tried to counsel the in-laws of his daughter, but they did not mend their attitude and continued to harass her and because of that harassment she committed suicide by setting herself ablaze by pouring kerosene oil upon her.

7. On receipt of this report, FIR bearing No. 185/2003 for commission of offence under Section 306 RPC was registered with Police Station, R. S. Pura against the respondent and his parents (now deceased). The investigation was handed over to I.O Charan Singh, who after recording the statements of the witnesses and obtaining the post mortem report, laid the charge-sheet against the respondent and his parents for the commission of offence under Section 306 RPC before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (JMIC), R. S. Pura and the same was committed to the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu, who transferred the charge-sheet to the learned trial court vide order dated 04.05.2006. The charge against the accused and his parents was framed for the commission of offence under Section 306 RPC and the prosecution was directed to lead evidence. The prosecution examined all the witnesses. The respondent did not lead any evidence. The learned trial court after hearing the parties acquitted the respondent and his parents vide judgment dated 19.02.2013. It needs to be noted that the parents of the respondent expired during the pendency of this appeal.

8. In order to appreciate as to whether the opinion formed by the learned trial court while acquitting the respondent and his parents on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution is possible or not, it is necessary to have a brief resume of the relevant portion of the prosecution evidence.

9. PW 1-Preetam Chand (Complainant-Father of the deceased) stated that the deceased resided normally for one year after marriage with the respondents, but thereafter, the accused started demanding dowry. She used to tell him about the same. The accused used to insult his daughter. He also tried to counsel the deceased that she was having three children. The accused administered beatings to the deceased last to last year. He expressed ignorance as to who burnt the deceased. He further stated that he did not know as to whether the deceased set herself ablaze or not. The deceased was fed up with the harassment and thereafter, she poured kerosene oil upon her and set herself ablaze. He came to know the other day that the deceased had been burnt. He had lodged a report with the Police Station and the same was proved by him. He also proved the FIR (EXPW PC/1). During cross-examination stated that the deceased used to visit them after about 2 to 3 months. He further stated that the deceased visited his house two to three months prior to the occurrence as well and complained about the beatings administered to her by the accused. He had lodged a report with the Police Station, Women Cell two years before the occurrence but he expressed ignorance about the outcome of the proceedings and also stated that no one was arrested. When he had gone to counsel the accused persons two years before the occurrence, he was abused by the accused. Then, he lodged a report against the accused. The accused demanded Peti, Steel Godrej Almirah. He had given Peti, TV set, Utensils, etc. in the dowry.

10. PW 2-Gara Ram stated that the accused-Girdhari Lal had separated from his parents and was residing at some distance from his parents. He never saw the accused and deceased fighting. He was declared hostile and despite cross-examination no incriminating material could be extracted.

11. PW 3 Om Prakash stated that Banso Devi was preparing meals on stove. The stove was not working properly and she was trying to lit it again. The oil fell upon her, as a result of which she was engulfed with fire. He was declared hostile and despite cross-examination no incriminating material could be extracted.

12. PW 4 Gobind Parsad was cited as a witness to the seizure memo. He identified his signatures only on the seizure memo but denied the contents of the same. He was declared hostile and despite cross-examination no incriminating material could be extracted.

13. PW 5 Darshan Lal stated that he received a telephonic message about death of Banso Devi, but he was not aware about the relations of the deceased and her in-laws.

14. PW 6-Janak Raj (Brother of the deceased) stated that Girdhari Lal used to quarrel with the deceased and demand more dowry but as they were poor, so they could not meet the demands. The accused used to beat the deceased and turn her out from their house. They tried to persuade the accused many times but they did not mend their attitude. On 05.09.2003, they received a message that the deceased had been killed. They rushed to the Police Station and the body was taken to hospital. He proved the seizure memo of the dead body (EXPW JR). He also proved the seizure memo of clothes (EXPW JR/1) and receipt of the dead body (EXPW JR/2). During cross-examination, he stated that the deceased used to stay for four months in her in-laws house and four months with them. He expressed ignorance as to whether the deceased committed suicide or she was killed by the accused. Whenever his sister used to come to her parental house, she used to narrate that the accused demanded dowry from her. He never lodged any report with the Police Station with regard to the beatings of his sister.

15. PW 7 Koshalya Devi (Mother of the Deceased) stated that after marriage, the deceased was beaten by the accused and she counselled the accused many times but they paid no heed and continued to harass the deceased, as a result of which she ended her life when she was pregnant. During cross-examination, she stated that she used to visit the accused once in 1-2 years. Her daughter and son-in-law used to live separately from their parents but in the same house and there was a wall separating the house. She had visited the deceased one month prior to her death. Relations between the deceased and accused remained cordial for 4/5 years. She did not know as to why the accused used to beat the deceased.

16. PW 8 Dr. C. R. Shivgotra: He proved the post mortem report (EXPW PT). He stated that there were no signs of violence on the face of the deceased, but her scalp was burnt. During cross-examination, he stated that injuries could not be caused due to bursting of stove since whole of the body of the deceased (95%) was burnt.

17. PW 9 Sunil Kumar Sharma stated that the photographs on record were not clicked by him.

18. PW 10 Dr. Virinder Trisal: He also proved the post mortem report and stated that in his opinion death was due to neurogenic shock as a result of excessive burn injuries.

19. PW 11-Dr. Balkar Chowdhary also made similar statement like Dr. Virinder Trisal and also proved the post mortem report.

20. PW 12-Charan Singh deposed about the conducting of the investigation. He stated that after investigation he proved offence under Section 306 RPC against the respondents. During cross- examination, he stated that Girdhari Lal was residing separately from his parents, but they had a common compound.

21. PW 13 Mohd. Rafiq stated that he laid the charge-sheet after examining the investigation report.

22. PW 14-Bawa Ditta stated that on being informed by the father of the deceased that his daughter had burnt herself, he accompanied the complainant to the Police Station and they were asked to come on the next day. Next day the post mortem was conducted and body of the deceased was handed over to them for her last rites. This is the whole prosecution evidence.

23. It needs to be noted that in an appeal against the acquittal, it is only to be examined as to whether the opinion formed by the learned trial court while appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution during the course of trial, is possible or not and interference is permitted only when the trial court ignores the vital piece of evidence and comes to the conclusion, that is not possible at all, on the basis of evidence led by the parties.

24. So far as the instant case is concerned, though it is proved that the deceased died because of burn injuries but the prosecution has not been able to prove that the respondents immediately prior to the death of the deceased committed some act that prompted her to commit suicide.

25. Except the parents and brother of the deceased i.e. PW Nos. 1-Preetam Chand, 6-Janak Raj and 7-Koshalya Devi, no one has deposed about the harassment meted to the deceased by the accused. In fact, it has come in the evidence of Preetam Chand that the deceased had visited his house two to three months prior to the occurrence whereas PW 7-Koshalya Devi has stated that she had last visited the deceased about one month before she died. From the statements of the PWs 1 and 7, it is not forthcoming that prior to death of the deceased she was treated in such a manner that she was left with no other option but to end her life.

26. It would be relevant to take note of the fact that the accused/respondent-Girdhari Lal was living separately from his parents, though in the same house. It appears that only on the basis of the past acts of the respondents, they were implicated for commission of offence under Section 306 RPC. As per the prosecution witness PWs 1, 6 and 7, the deceased was harassed for not bringing sufficient dowry but no FIR for the commission of offence under Section 498-A RPC was registered against the respondents and even no charge for commission of the same was framed against the respondents.

27. Statement of PW 7 i.e. mother of the deceased is very relevant wherein she has deposed that she does not know why the accused used to beat the deceased. In fact, this part of the statement runs contrary to whole of the prosecution story.

28. This Court is of the considered view that in view of the evidence led by the prosecution, respondents cannot be held guilty for the commission of offence under Section 306 RPC. This court has examined the judgment passed by the learned trial court and perusal of the same reveals that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence and there is no perversity in the judgment impugned that warrants interference by this Court.

29. Viewed thus, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.