circumstances. Elaborating his submissions in this behalf, learned counsel has referred to statements of PW1 Thirpal Paliwal-father of deceased, and PW4 Kamal Paliwar-brother of the deceased. Relying on the cross-examination of PW1 Thirpal Paliwal, it is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Jain, that prima facie his statements are not inculpatory so as to indicate that petitioner has subjected deceased to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand of dowry soon before her death. It is argued by learned counsel that prosecution has also set up a case that on the crucial day, accused was not present at Ramdevra. Learned counsel has further contended that a cumulative reading of the statements of PW1 are sufficient to show that there was no serious acrimony between the spouses and during subsistence of two years’ matrimony the deceased hardly remained for six months at her matrimonial home. It is also submitted by learned counsel that before lodging of the FIR, no complaint was filed by the deceased or her family members about demand of dowry or harassment meted out to her for demand of dowry. Adverting to the statements of PW4 Kamal Paliwal-brother of deceased, it is submitted by learned counsel that his statements are at variance to the statements of PW1 Thirpal Paliwal-father of the deceased. It is also argued by learned counsel that the statements are per se projecting embellished version inasmuch as he has made marked improvements from his police statements. While taking a dig at the charge-sheet submitted by investigating authority, it is submitted by learned counsel that police has not collected any cogent evidence against the petitioner and further despite allegations against father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased, they are not being charge-sheeted. Lastly,
