JUDGMENT [ENTITY], J.
1. This appeal at the instance of the appellant stands directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 18.4.2002. passed in [CASE NUMBER], by Sri [ENTITY], Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the appellant has been found guilty for the offence punishable Under [SECTION] of the [ACT] and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.
2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the written report (Ext. 2) of PW 10, [ENTITY], the informant lodged before the officer incharge, Kanke police station, Ranchi at 11.00 hours on 25.10.1998 regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place on 24.101998 at 23.00 hours in the house of the appellant situate at Sukuruhutu police station Kanke District Ranchi regarding the unnatural death of [ENTITY], the 19 years old wife of the appellant. A case was instituted by drawing of a formal FIR (Ext. 4) on 25.10.1998 at 11.00 hours. The written report and the formal FIR were received on 30.10.1998 in the Court empowered to take cognizance,
3. The prosecution ease, in brief.is that the marriage of [ENTITY] was solemnized with the appellant in the month of February, 1998 on the day of [ENTITY] and the appellant and the deceased [ENTITY] were residing together in the house of the appellant situate at Sukurukutu poliec station Kanke District Ranchi and the appellant, who is aged about 45 years, is employed in [ENTITY] and he was on duty there from 14.00 hours to 22.00 hours on 24.10.1998 and while he was returning from his office at 22.00 hours the tyre of rear wheel of his cycle got punctured and he kept his cycle at Kanke Chowk and reached at his house at 23.00 hours on that day. It is alleged that when he entered in his house after opening the gate, he found the light of his house except his bed room switched-off and the door of his bed room was closed but not latched from inside and when he entered in the room pushing the plank of the door of his house lie found his wife [ENTITY] hanging with the and of synthetic sari in the bed room and he went there and called her and finding no response he came to the conclusion that [ENTITY] has committed suicide. It is alleged that the appellant came to the police station and gave information in respect which was entered in the station diary as S.D.E. No. 626, dated 24.10.1998. II is alleged that the informant went to the place of occurrence but in the absence of Lhe proper light and it being dead of night he could not make any investigation. It is alleged that the informant came to the house of the appellant at 7.00 hours on 25.10.1998 for investigation and in course of investigation he found the deceased [ENTITY] hanging with the aid of her sari from the beam of the asbestos roof of the said bed room over her palang and her head was only 2" above the said palang and her both hands and legs were on the said palang and there was a stool lying by the side or her thigh and her head was facing west and her legs were facing east and there was no interference in the bed-sheet stretched on the said palang. It is further alleged that the height of the said beam from the said palang is only 7" and the aforesaid facts have created reasonable suspicion that it is not a case of suicide rather a case of commission of planned murder. The prosecution case further is that it transpired in course of investigation that the marriage of the deceased was per- formed-with the appellant forcibly and she has passed class X examination and she was dissatisfied with her marriage with the appellant who was more that double of her age but she had compromised with the situation and was leading conjugal life with the appellant for the sake of prestige of the family but inspite of that the conduct of the appellant was not befitting to her and there was always a quarrel between them.
4. On the basis of the written report of the informant, a case Under [SECTION] of the [ACT] was instituted against the appellant but on investigation charged-sheet was submitted Under [SECTION], [ACT].
5. The charge was framed against the appellant Under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
6. The appellant has pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against him and he claims himself to be innocent and to have committed no offence and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It has also been contended that the deceased was mentally sick suffering from major depressive psychosis and she has committed suicide.
7. The prosecution has examined, in all, 12 witnesses to substantiate its case PW 10, [ENTITY] is the informant of this case and he has proved the written report (Ext. 2), inquest report (Ext.3) and the formal FIR (Ext. 4) P.W. 4 [ENTITY] and PW 7 [ENTITY] are the father and mother respectively of the deceased. PW 8 [ENTITY] is the brother of PW 4 and PW 9 [ENTITY] is the uncle of PW 4. PW 6 [ENTITY] is the husband of the sister of PW 4. PW 1 [ENTITY] is a neighbour of the appellant and he also figures as witness on the inquest report and his signature thereon is Ext. 1 PW 3 [ENTITY] AH and PW 5 [ENTITY] are the employees of [ENTITY] working with the appellant, but PW 5 has been declared hostile by the prosecution PW 2 [ENTITY] by profession a tailor is a tenant in the said house of the appellant and he is a witness on the Inquest report (Ext. 3) and his signature on the inquest report is Ext. 1/1. PW 12 [ENTITY] is the I O of this case PW 11 Dr. [ENTITY] has conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and the post-mortem report per his pen is Ext. 5. Dr. [ENTITY], Medical Officer, RINPAS Kanke, Ranchi has been examined as defence witness No. 1 and he has proved his proscriptions regarding the treatment of 1.1k; deceased which are Ext. A series.
8. In view of the oral and documentary evidence on the record the learned Court below found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as stated above.
9. Assailing the impugned judgment it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Court below has failed to scan and scrutinise the evidence on the record in proper perspective and has committed a manifest error in coming to the finding of the guilt of the appellant and there is no iota of legal evidence on the record regarding the demand of scooter and cash for construction of the latrine by the appellant from the deceased or her relatives in dowry and subjecting the deceased to cruelty or harassment soon before her death by the appellant. It has further been submitted that there is evidence on the record to show that there was cordial conjugal relationship between the deceased and the appellant throughout their matrimonial life and the deceased has committed suicide as she was mentally sick suffering from acute depressive psychosis and she was under the treatment of DW 1, who was the medical officer of the RINPAS. It has also been submitted that there is nothing on the record of this case to show that the deceased was ever treated with cruelty or harassment for the fulfillment of demand of dowry soon before her death and in the absence of any such evidence it is not possible for the Court to take recourse to the presumption as envisaged Under [SECTION] of the [ACT] and further there is also no evidence on the record that the appellant has created any situation for the deceased to commit suicide. It has also been' contended that the medical evidence on the record has totally ruled out the possibility of the homicidal death of the deceased rather she has omitted suicide in the absence of the appellant when he was on his duty in the [ENTITY], Ranchi. It has further been contended that the appel- lant purchased the-scooter after obtaining the loan from the bank and, therefore, there is no reason for him to ask for money as dowry for purchasing the scooter and for construction latrine in the house and the evidence of the parents of the deceased and there other relatives is unworthy of credit and they are highly interested and partisan witnesses having animus to depose falsely against the appellant when, in fact, the death of the deceased is a suicidal death. It has also been contended that written report of the informant is antitimed as a result of after though, consultation and deliberation due to extraneous reasons in view of the fact that the FIR and the written report have been received in the Court on 30.10.1998 i.e. after live days and no explanation is forthcoming on the record by the prosecution in respect thereof and as such it creates reasonable doubts regarding their authenticity. Lastly it has been contended that the finding of the guilt of the appellant has been arrived at without any legal evidence and is totally unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of this case and thus, the impugned judgment is unsustainable.
10. In contra, the learned APP has submitted that the death of the deceased is an unnatural death taking place only after 10 months of her marriage in her matrimonial home and there is evidence on the record to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for the fulfillment of demand of dowry which has compelled her to commit suicide and the learned Court below has properly weighed and considered the evidence on the record and has rightly come to the finding of the guilt of the appellant and thus this is no illegality in the impugned judgment.
11. It will admit of no doubt that [ENTITY], The deceased of this case, is the lawfully wedded wife of appellant [ENTITY] and their marriage was performed on 25.2.1998 in accordance with Hindu Religious and Rites in [ENTITY], Chutia, Ranchi and after the marriage the deceased came to her matrimonial home at Sukuruthutu in the company of her husband where she was leading her conjugal life with him. It is relevant to mention here that there was a great disparity of age between the couple and according to the prosecution case, she was aged about 19 years whereas the appellant was more than double of her age. There is evidence on the record to show that the background of this marriage is a chequered one. It is manifest from the evidence of PWs 4, 6 and 7 appearing in paragraphs 7, 8 as well as 6 and 4 respectively in their testimony that the marriage of the deceased was settled on negotiation with some other person and it was to be performed on 6.2.1998 in Jagarnath temple, Ranchi and the deceased with her family members had come to the said temple for solemnization for her marriage and the bridegroom with his relatives has also arrived in the said Jagarnath temple but the deceased was kidnaped from that temple and the said marriage could not be solemnized. PW4, [ENTITY], the father of the deceased has deposed that the marriage of the deceased was settled on negotiation to be performed in Jagarnath temple and on 6.2.1998 he along with his relatives and the deceased arrived at the said temple but the said marriage cold not be solemnized and the deceased was taken away from the temple by his relatives and a news to that effect was published in. the newspaper. PW 6 has deposed that the marriage of the deceased with the said bridegroom could not be performed in the said Jagarnath temple for the reasons that the said bridegroom was aged about 28 years and of dark complexion and not good to look at and his economic condition was also not satisfactory. He has further deposed that the deceased was taken back to her house from the said temple. However, he has deposed-that the deceased was not kidnaped from the said temple. PW 7 the mother of the deceased in her evidence on oath has also testified the said fact. Thereafter the marriage of the deceased was settled on negotiation with the appellant which was performed in [ENTITY], Chutia on 25.2.1998. It is equally pertinent to mention here the evidence of PW 1. He has deposed in paragraph 6 of his testimony that there was cordial conjugal relationship between the deceased and the appellant and never a quarrel had ever taken place between them during their conjugal life. PW 1 is the neighbour of the appellant. The appellant is admittedly in service of [ENTITY] and on the day of the occurrence, he was on duty from 14.00 hours to 22.00 hours and this fact has been testified by PW 3 in his evidence on oath. The prosecution case as averred in the written report of the informant is that the circumstances in which the dead body has been found rules out a case of suicide of the deceased rather it is a case of commission of planned murder. PW 11, Dr. [ENTITY] has deposed to have con- ducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 25.10.1998 and has found the following ante-mortem injury on the dead body of the deceased;
"Ligature mark 2.3 cm wide situated on the upper part of the neck, oblique and high-up towards back of the neck. The ligature mark is prominent all around the neck except back of the upper part of neck where it is discontinuous. The ligature mark is a braided and contused at places."
The medical witness has further deposed that the death of the deceased is due to asphyxia as a result of hanging and time elapsed since death is between 18.00 hours to 48.00 hours from the time of postmortem examination. His evidence is further to the effect that "ligature mark as noticed above cannot be caused by strangulation with rope or pressing of neck by fingers as suggested by prosecution." Thus in view of the evidence of medical witness the homicidal death of the deceased is totally ruled out in this case. The death of the deceased is also not an accidental death. It, therefore, appears that the deceased has committed suicide. It is equally relevant to mention here that the objective finding of PW 10, the informant regarding the manner in which the dead body has been found in the bed room of the appellant as averred and deposed by him lacks credence as per the testimony of PWs 1 and 2 in which they have stated that PW 10 had come to the place of occurrence at 23.30 hours and he had got the dead body, which was hanging, brought down and kept on the bed. I see no reason to discredit the testimony of PWs I and 2 in respect thereof. However, the death of the deceased is an unnatural death and it stands shrouded by suspicious circumstances which has occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances in her matrimonial home during the subsistence of her marriage with the appellant within 7 years of their marriage.
12. For drawing the presumption as mandated Under [SECTION] of the [ACT] in this case regarding the unnatural death of the deceased the prosecution has to prove by legal evidence on the record that the death of the deceased has occurred within 7 years of her marriage and she was subjected by the appellant to cruelty or harassment soon before her death for or in connection with demand of dowry. In order to attract application of [SECTION], the essential ingredients are as follows :
"(i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances;
(ii) Such death should have occurred within 7 years of her marriage;
(iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband;
(iv) Such cruelly or harassment should before or in connection with demand of dowry; and
(v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.
It is only when the aforementioned ingredients are established by acceptable evidence such death shall be called dowry death and the husband or his relatives shall be deemed to have caused her death.
13. It is essential to mention here that there is an averment in written report (Ext. 2) of the informant that the marriage of the deceased was performed with the appellant forcibly and she was dissatisfied with her marriage with the appellant who was more than double of her age but she had compromised with the situation and was leading conjugal life with the appellant for the sake of prestige of her family but inspite of that the conduct of the appellant was not befitting to her and there was always a quarrel between them. The allegation of demand of dowry and torture of the deceased in connection therewith has not averred in the written report aforesaid. However, evidence has been brought on the record in the testimony of PWs 4, 7, 6, 8 and 9 that the appellant had made demand of a scooter and Rs. 20,000/- as dowry and he has tortured the deceased for the fulfillment of said demand and the appellant has committed her murder and has given a show of hanging of the deceased PW 4, [ENTITY], the father of the deceased has deposed that at the time of the marriage an acrimonious situation has cropped-up on the question of demand of dowry but after great persuasion the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the appellant and the deceased had gone to her matrimonial home from [ENTITY] aforesaid in the company of her husband where she had led her conjugal life for two months. He has further deposed that the deceased came to his house after two months of her stay in her matrimonial home and she had stated that the family members of the appellant used to demand a scooter and Rs. 20,000/- in cash and on this information he had given Rs. 10,000/- to the family members of the appellant for purchasing a scooter. His evidence is further to the effect that he gave Rs. 5,000/- each on two occasions to the family members of the appellant for construction of the latrine in the house of the appellant and there was further a demand of Rs. 20,000/- by them. It, therefore, appears from the evidence of PW 4 referred to above that the said demand was never made by the appellant rather by the family members of the appellant and Rs. 10,000/- for purchasing the scooter and further as sum of Rs. 5,000/- each on two occasions were made by this witness to the family members of the appellant. Here I will refer the evidence of PW 1 in which he has stated that the father and the brother of the appellant are separate with the appellant and they separately reside from the appellant. He has further deposed that the appellant along with the deceased used to live separately from them in his house. Therefore, the testimony of PW 1 lacks credence regarding the factum of demand of dowry by the appellant and payment to him. Furthermore, PW 4 in his evidence has not whispered that the appellant has ever subjected the deceased with cruelty for the fulfillment of the alleged demand of dowry even in remote past. It further appears from the evidence of PW 4 that the deceased while informing him regarding the alleged demand of dowry has also not stated before him that she has been subjected to cruelty by the appellant for the fulfillment of the said demand PW 4 has deposed that he does not remember the date on which he had paid Rs. 10,000/- for purchase of the scooter to the appellant and Rs. 5,000/- for the construction of the latrine, but he has deposed that he had withdrawn Rs. 10,000/- from his bank account for payment to the appellant. No document whatsoever has been brought on record to evidence the said fact. He has also deposed that he has taken loan Rs. 5,000/- from PW 6 for making payment to the appellant for construction of the latrine. PW 6 has deposed that on demand he had paid Rs. 5,000/- to PW 4 which he had handed over to the appellant for construction of the latrine. In paragraph 12 of his cross-examination PW 6 has deposed that he does not remember the date on which he had paid Rs. 5,000/- to PW 4 for being given to the appellant. Therefore, the evidence of PW 4 has no bearing in this ease regarding the deceased being subjected to cruelty for in connection with the demand of dowry PW 7. [ENTITY] the mother of the deceased has deposed that the deceased came to her parents house for the first time after two months of her marriage from her matrimonial home. She has further deposed that PW 4 was telling that is it proper for the son-in-law to move on foot when his father-in-law is an employee of a Bank, and at this the appellant being the son-in-law of PW 2 asked for a scooter and at this a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid to the appellant for purchase of scooter. She has further deposed that Rs. 20,000/- was paid on demand to the appellant for the construction of the latrine. Here it is pertinent to mention that the deceased has not reported to her mother regarding the demand of a scooter and also for cash for the construction of the latrine. Furthermore, PW 7 contradicts the testimony of PW 4 as well as of PW 6 and other witnesses in respect of payment of Rs. 20,000/- for construction of the latrine. PW 7 has further deposed that despite the fulfillment of the aforesaid demand appellant used to assault the deceased as he had illicit relationship with some girl PW 7 has further deposed in paragraph 7 of her evidence that her husband (PW 4) had gone to the house of the deceased on telephonic call made by the deceased that the family members of the appellant had assaulted her, but surprisingly enough PW 4 does not whisper in respect thereof in his evidence on oath. Furthermore, PW 7 has deposed that Rs. 20,000/- was paid to the appellant after taking loan whereas the evidence of PW 4 is that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- has been taken as loan and Rs. 5,000/- was withdrawn from the bank for making payment to the appellant but PW 4 does not say that Rs. 20,000/- was paid to the appellant for the construction of the latrine. In view of the inherent inconsistency and material contradiction appearing in the evidence of PW 7 read with evidence of PW 4 her evidence appears to have no ring of truth regarding the demand of dowry and the deceased having been subjected to cruelty for its fulfullment by the appellant PW 8 the uncle of the deceased has deposed that when after two months of her marriage the deceased had come to her parent's house, she has stated that the appellant demands Rs. 10,000/- and he along with others contributed Rs. 10,000/- and paid to the appellant as he was the son-in-law, of the family. PW 8 thus gives a total go-bye to the evidence of PWs 4 and 6 that Rs. 10,000/- was paid to the appellant after withdrawing the said amount from the bank. He has further deposed that on the request of [ENTITY], the deceased, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was paid to the appellant for construction of the latrine. This evidence of PW 8 is in contradiction with the testimony of PW 4 in respect of which I have already stated above PW 8 has specifically deposed in paragraph 13 of his evidence that the deceased was telling that the appellant loiters hither and thither and he has illicit relationship with a nurse and on her protest he used to assault her and also intimidates her. It, therefore, appears from his evidence that the assault on the person of the deceased by the appellant and her intimidation even presumed to be correct has definitely no co-relation with the alleged demand of dowry.
Therefore, the evidence of PW 8 does not at all inspire confidence. The evidence of PW 9 [ENTITY] said to be the uncle of PW 4 gives a death blow to the case of the prosecution regarding the demand of Rs. 10,000/- and its payment for purchase of scooter. He has deposed in paragraph 3 of his evidence that PW 4 [ENTITY] had told him that the appellant vexes the deceased for Rs. 10,000/- and at this that he paid Rs. 10,000/- to PW 4. His evidence aforesaid, therefore, discredit the testimony of PW 4 that he has withdrawn Rs. 10,000/- from his bank account for payment to the appellant for purchase of the scooter PW 9 in paragraph 13 of his evidence has deposed that he has said Rs. 10,000/- aforesaid to PW 4 after 8 months of the marriage and it. 'Therefore, appears that the said amount of Rs. 10,000/- was paid by this witness to PW 4 after the death of the deceased which casts a cloud of suspicion to the very credibility of the prosecution case in respect thereof. It appears from the evidence of- PW 4 that the deceased has come to her parents house only on two months after her marriage. There is no evidence on the record that she has come to her parents house thereafter PW 9 has deposed in paragraph 10 of his evidence that the deceased has come to her parents house after one and half or two months of her marriage and she has stayed there for ten days and he had met her in her parents house. This witness does not say that on this occasion the deceased has stated about the demand of dowry or any torture in connection therewith to her. He has further deposed that he had come to the parent's house of the deceased after two months thereafter and he had the occasion to meet the deceased with the appellant and the appellant had come there on his scooter and in view of the evidence aforesaid the testimony of this witness in paragraph 4 that he had come one week after the payment of Rs. 10,000/- by him to PW 4 at the house of PW 4 where he had met the deceased who has narrated to him regarding the demand of Rs. 20, 000/- by the appellant and subjecting her to cruelty for its fulfullment appears to be palpably false and incorrect. Therefore, no reliance can be placed upon the testimony of PW 4. PW 6 has deposed that he sometimes used to visit the matrimonial home of the deceased and the deceased used to tell her that the family members of the appellant vexes and harasses her for dowry and they used to tell her to bring dowry from her parents house he has further deposed that the appellant himself started making demand of dowry. He has further deposed that PW 4 [ENTITY] had paid ,Rs. 5,000/- to the appellant for construction of the latrine. In paragraph 8 in his cross-examination, he has deposed that he had visited the house of the appellant thrice after three months of the marriage where the deceased used to tell him that he has assaulted and abused her and on one occasion there was one Master [ENTITY] present and the said Master [ENTITY] is still alive but he has not taken oath in this case to corroborate the evidence of this witness. He has further deposed that he was on visiting terms with PW 4 but inspite of that he does not whisper in his evidence, regarding the demand of scooter and Rs. 20,000/- for the construction of the latrine by the appellant. Therefore/the evidence of this witness is equally unreliable. PW 4 in paragraph 13 of his evidence has admitted in the most clear and unequivocal terms that the appellant has purchased the scooter after taking loan from the bank but in the next breath he has the audacity to say that he has also paid Rs. 10,000/- for its purchase. In paragraph 11 of his evidence he has deposed that he does not remember the. date on which the said scooter was purchased but the said scooter was purchased after three or four months of the marriage by the appellant and he has seen the said scooter in the bank and at that time it did not bear its registration number PW 12 the IO in paragraph 13 of his evidence has deposed that the has obtained a report from the bank regarding the loan for purchase of the scooter taken by the appellant. The said report of the bank has been deliberately withheld by the prosecution in this case. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the loan as advanced to the appellant for purchase of the scooter by Bank of Baroda on 14.9. 1998 which shall be evident from the report of the said bank. Thus an adverse inference has to be withdrawn against the authenticity of the prosecution case regarding the demand of the scooter in dowry by the appellant and for subjecting the deceased with cruelty in respect thereof due to the suppression of the material evidence by the prosecution. It is equally relevant to mention here that the evidence of PW 4 that there was acrimonious situation cropped-up at the time of the marriage of the appellant with the deceased in the [ENTITY], Chutia is palpably false and incorrect in view of the fact that the IO in paragraph 11 of his evidence that PW 4 has not stated before him regarding any acrimonious situation having cropped up regarding the question of damned of dowry at the time of marriage. And to crown all PW 4 in paragraph 6 of his cross-examination has , categorically stated that the marriage of the appellant with the deceased was performed out of their free consent in cordial atmosphere. It, therefore, appears on critical scanning and scrutiny of the evidence referred to above that there is no reliable evidence on the record to substantiate the fact that the appellant has demanded a scooter and Rs. 20,000/- from the deceased or her parents and has subjected the deceased to cruelty for its fulfillment.
14. There is nothing on the record brought by the prosecution to prove the fact that soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for the demand of dowry and thus it is not permissible to take recourse to legal presumption Under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. A reading of [SECTION] of the [ACT] along with [SECTION] shows that there must be material to show that soon before the death of the deceased , she was subjected to cruelty or harassment. Prosecution has to rule out the possibility of natural and accidental death. The expression "soon before" is very relevant where [SECTION] of the [ACT] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] are pressed into service. Prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led by prosecution " soon before" is a relative terms and it would depend upon circumstances of each case and no strait-jacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence and it would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for rising a presumption Under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. The expression "soon before her death" used in the substantive [SECTION] of the [ACT] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] is present with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression "soon before" is not defined. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression "soon before" would normally imply that the interval should not be mush between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of an approximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. In view of the evidence on the record it stands established in this case that the death of the deceased has taken placed within 7 years of her marriage in her matrimonial home and her death is unnatural death otherwise than under normal circumstances but there is no iota of legal evidence on the record to establish the fact that soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellant for the fulfillment of said demand. It is imperative for invoking the legal presumption Under [SECTION] of the [ACT] the soon before her death the deceased was subjected with cruelty or harassment but in this case there is nothing on the record to show that the deceased was treated with cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand of scooter in dowry soon before her death and in the absence of any such evidence it is not permissible to take recourse to legal presumption as envisaged in [SECTION] of the [ACT]. It is thus evident from the discussion above that the prosecution did not substantiate by legal evidence the ingredients constituting the offence Under [SECTION] of the [ACT] I am fortified in may view aforesaid as per the ratio of the cases of [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT] ; [PRECEDENT]; and [ENTITY] and Anr. v. State of Haryana 2004 AIR SCW 1230. PW 4 has deposed that the appellant and the deceased have led their conjugal live happily for two months and thereafter when she had come to her parent's house she had narrated about the demand of dowry. It, therefore, appears that during the early part of their conjugal life i.e. first two months there was no demand of dowry or any torture in connection therewith on the deceased by the appellant. PW 1 has deposed that there was cordial conjugal relationship between the couple and never a quarrel did take place between them. DW 1 has deposed that he is M.D. in Psychiatry working as consultant in Neuro Psychiatrist of Ranchi Mental Hospital now know as RINPAS and he has examined the deceased for the first time on 12.4.1998 and has found the deceased having complaint about her problems. Her sleep was disturbed and feeling sad. She had lack of initiations . She had the feeling of helplessness, delusion of guilt, Idea of suicide and her judgment was poor. He has further deposed that the case of the deceased was of major depressive psychosis. He has further deposed that he has again examined the deceased on 14.5.1998 and 3.6.1998. The prescriptions of DW I are Ext. A series. It appears that when the deceased was examined for the first time by DW 1 there was definitely cordial relationship between them and the appellant being husband had taken proper care for her treatment. The finding of the learned Court below in paragraph 20 that the Act of cruelty for the sake of, dowry had destroyed the normal frame of mind of the deceased and such type of mental derailment is the result of physical tortures, is against the materials on the record and the said finding is perverse without having any basis. The appellant in his statement Under [SECTION] of the [ACT] has stated that after concealing the mental sickness of the deceased his marriage with her was solemnized by PW 4. The IO has also deposed that her cremation was performed by the appellant. It, therefore, appears that there is every possibility that the deceased has committed suicide due to her mental sickness suffering from major depressive psychosis. Furthermore, there is evidence on the record as per the testimony of PW 3 that on the day of the occurrence the appellant was on his duty in [ENTITY], Ranchi from 14.00 hours to 22.00 hours. The IO in his evidence has not controverted the said fact as he did not verify the said fact in course of investigation by going to the [ENTITY], Ranchi in respect thereof. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the defence version that the deceased has committed suicide appears to be natural and probable.
15. There is one important aspect involved in this case having its relevancy. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 24.10.1998 at 23.00 hours and Station Diary Entry was recorded on the statement of the appellant which bears S.D.E. No. 626 dated 24.10.1998 and the said Station Diaiy Entry was not brought on the record by the prosecution Furthermore the case was instituted on the basis of the written report (Ext. 2) of PW 10 on 25.10.1998 at 11.00 hours. Admittedly the formal FIR along with the written report (Ext. 2) was received on 30.10.1998 in the Court empowered to take cognizance. There is no dispute in respect of the fact that Kanke Police Station is in the town of Ranchi where the Court empowered to take cognizance is situated. The said formal FIR along with the written report was received in the Court on 30.10.1998 i.e. after five days of the institution of the case. There is no iota of legal evidence on the record explaining as to why it has been received in the Court on 30.10.1998 FIR in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led at the trial. The object of the insisting upon the prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed including the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them, the weapons, if any, used as also the names of the eye witnesses, if any, and delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought and on account of delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in with the introduction or a coloured version or exaggerated story. The FIR if is received late in the Court. It can give rise to an inference that the FIR was not lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded and the facts and circumstance are indicative of the fact that the FIR came to be recorded later on after due deliberations and consultations and it was ante timed unless of course, the prosecution can offer a satisfactory explanation for the delay in dispatching or receiving of the FIR by the local Magistrate. In this case the prosecution has failed to furnish any explanation whatsoever in respect thereof. Furthermore [SECTION] of the [ACT] casts a duty upon the 10 to forthwith send the report of the cognizable offence to the concerned Magistrate empowered to take cognizance I am fortified in my view in respect thereof as per the ratio of the case of [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT]. This aspect of the matter casts a cloud of suspicion to the very credibility of the warp and woof of the prosecution case and it appears that the written report is definitely ante timed. The learned Court below did not at all meticulously scan and scrutinize the evidence on the record In proper perspective and has committed a manifest error in arriving at the finding of the guilt of the appellant in this case I, therefore, see substance in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant and viewed thus, the impugned judgment is unsustainable.
16. There is merit in this appeal and it succeeds. The appeal is hereby allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. The appellant is found not guilty and he Is accordingly acquitted. The appellant is ordered to be set free forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.