Judgment :- (1.) BY this application under Section 397/401 of the Cr. P. C. read with Section 482 thereby judgment and order dated 10/9/2004 passed by learned Additional sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Hooghly in S. C. No. 249 of 2002 corresponding to S. T. No. 10 of 2003 (old) and S. T. No. 20 (A) of 2004 (New)acquitting thereby all the petitioners herein all the charges under Section 498a/ 304b/306 of the I. P. C. is under challenge on the ground that there has been complete mis-appreciation of evidence and the learned Sessions Judge misdirected himself in not considering evidence of the Witnesses in proper perspective. (2.) P. W. 1, Manas Samanta of Panchanantala Road under P. S. Uttarpara. Dist-Hooghly lodged a written complaint with the Officer-in-Charge, uttar Para Police Station on 15. 2. 2002 at 14-45 hours alleging that his sister ramapatra who was given in marriage with the petitioner No. 2, Sukumar patra on 24. 11. 1999 and in whose marriage a cash of Rs. 30,000/-, 10 vories of Gold Ornaments and furniture and utensils of huge quantum was presented came to be subjected to ill treatment torture on the demand of bringing money from his house. There was no peace in her matrimonial family since the accused sukumar had a less income, he being a businessman carrying on business of potato, while his other brothers hold good jobs. This was stated by the victim whenever she would come to his house. After Durga Puja Festival of 2001, the accused persons Sukumar, Sona, Bablu, Nilima and Aparna mounted pressure upon her to bring more money but since the complainant was without any employment and was dependent upon his uncle he could not provide money as demanded. After the Bijaya Dasami day he came to the matrimonial house of the victim when he found that the mother-in-law and the sisters-in-law of the victim were quarreling with her. However, at 12-30 noon on 15. 2. 2002 accused nilima Patra and others informed him that the victim had been lying in Uttarpara general Hospital. He came to the hospital and learnt i. e. , sister was brought dead in the hospital and it was a case of death by suicide. However, at 12-30 noon on 15. 2. 2002 accused nilima Patra and others informed him that the victim had been lying in Uttarpara general Hospital. He came to the hospital and learnt i. e. , sister was brought dead in the hospital and it was a case of death by suicide. (3.) ON this complaint after investigation charge-sheet submitted against the accused persons under Section 498a/306 of the I. P. C. and the learned additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the 18 accused persons on 11. 6. 2004 under Section 498a/304b/306 of the I. P. C. The learned Judge examined 18 Witnesses and upon such examination and also of examination of the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. found the accused persons not guilty of the offences and acquitted them of the charges. (4.) SINCE the State of West Bengal did not prefer any appeal that dafacto Complainant has filed this application under Section 401 read with section 482 of the Cr. P. C. challenging the order of acquittal on the ground that the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge are, in fact, beyond evidence, misconstruction of evidence and misapplication of lot of facts. (5.) BEFORE we embark upon the submissions of the petitioners let us traverse in brief the oral testimony of the Witnesses. (6.) OF the 19 Witnesses, it is the evidence of the defacto complainant (P. W. 1), Biswajit Samanta, uncle of the deceased (P. W. 2), Indrajit Samanta, uncle of the deceased (P. W. 3), Dilip Chakraborty, neighbour of P. W. 1 (P. W. 4)Rashbehari Samanta, another uncle of the deceased (P. W. 7). Smt. Rina chakraborty, another neighbour of the deceased (P. W. 8), Smt. Tapati Dhaki, yet another neighbour of the deceased (P. W. 9), Smt. Aparna Samanta, mother of the deceased (P. W. 11) that alone call for serious consideration because their evidences touch upon the fact in issue. (7.) P. W. 5, Dr. Kanchan Dutta who was the leader of the team in holding post Mortem of the deceased held that death was due to Asphyxia due to hanging (Exbt. 7) there was an oblique non continuous ligature mark high up in the neck with a gap of 1 inch below the right ear. (7.) P. W. 5, Dr. Kanchan Dutta who was the leader of the team in holding post Mortem of the deceased held that death was due to Asphyxia due to hanging (Exbt. 7) there was an oblique non continuous ligature mark high up in the neck with a gap of 1 inch below the right ear. Final opinion was not given since the report of the viscera was not obtained and even on the date of the examination of the P. W. 5 the report of viscera was not produced. P. W. 6, badal Kumar Manna is a constable who carried the dead body of the victim and identified it to P. W. 5. P. W. 11, Shymal Das who is the husband of the elder sister of the deceased is a witness to the seizure of some photographs, exbt. 5 by to. . . . evidence is not of any relevance. P. W. 2, Prasanta Das is a witness to the seizure of the wearing apparels of the deceased under Exbt. 9. It appears that this witness is a relation of the accused and he says in his evidence in cross-examination that the members of the family of P. W. 1 demanded Rs. 4 lac from the accused persons when seizure was effected. He further states that the father of the victim lives elsewhere with another girl. Strictly speaking evidence of this witness is of no assistance either to the prosecution or to the defence insofar as the charges levelled against the accused persons are concerned. P. W. 13, Mohan Chandra Karar is similarly a witness to the seizure list under Exbt. 9. P. W. 14. Tapas Kumar Roy, the executive Magistrate said that he held in quest over the body of the deceased on 16. 2. 2002 and submitted a report of inquest which is under Exbt. 3/3. P. W. 15, dr. Anushree Poddar, a Medical Officer of Uttarpara State General Hospital only says that she found a ligature mark around the neck of the deceased and nothing more. P. W. 16, Abdul Mannan is a Constable of Uttarpara Police Station who proves his signature in seizure list (Ext. 11). P. W. 17, Arijit Das Gupta was the Officer-in-Charge of Uttarpara Police Station on 15. 2. 2002 when he received the complaint from P. W. 1, Manas Samanta (Exbt. 1). P. W. 16, Abdul Mannan is a Constable of Uttarpara Police Station who proves his signature in seizure list (Ext. 11). P. W. 17, Arijit Das Gupta was the Officer-in-Charge of Uttarpara Police Station on 15. 2. 2002 when he received the complaint from P. W. 1, Manas Samanta (Exbt. 1). P. W. 18, Tapas kumar Ghosh and P. W. Lakshmi Narayan Bhattacharya are the two I. O. s of the case. (8.) LET us now consider evidence of the material witnesses namely p. W. 1, P. W. 2, P. W. 3, P. W. 4, P. W. 7, P. W. 8, P. W. 9, and P. W. 10. P. W. 1, P. W. 2, p. W. 3, have stated in their evidence that marriage between the victim Rama and accused Sukumar was solemnized on 24. 11. 1999 after negotiation and in the marriage, a cash of Rs. 30,000/- 10 vories of Gold Ornaments, Cot and almirah, Dressing Table and other utensils were presented. P. W. 1 says that the relationship between his sister and the members of the matrimonial family was not good and the reason for death of her sister was that money was demanded by members of the matrimonial home frequently and his sister used to be sent to his house to bring money because of the fact that her husband has less income. Physically and mentally torture was perpetrated upon her by the intimates of the matrimonial family who are the youngest sister-in-law, sonatan Patra, Bablu Patra, Nilima Patra, Aparna Patra, and mother-in-law of the deceased. After the Dasami Puja in the year of 2001 the (P. W. 1) came to the house of the accused and found the in-laws of the family in quarrelling with his sister. He came away from the house but on that day his sister had no occasion to state anything to him. His sister died on 15,2. 2002. P. W. 1 further says the cause of death was due to continuous infliction of physical and mental torture upon the deceased on demand of money. His sister narrated the incident of the torture to P. W. 10, her mother, uncle and others. His sister died on 15,2. 2002. P. W. 1 further says the cause of death was due to continuous infliction of physical and mental torture upon the deceased on demand of money. His sister narrated the incident of the torture to P. W. 10, her mother, uncle and others. In cross-examination p. W. 1 said that he cannot say the exact date when the demand was placed for money, the date when inculcation of torture commenced, the date when money was paid as per demand and the date, year and month when the victim narrated to him and others about torture. It is in his cross-examination that due to quarrel in the matrimonial home the victim came to his house and stayed for a week from 29. 10. 2001. His uncle Biswajit (P. W. 2) went to the house of the victim just before the night of the date of the incident. (9.) P. W. 2, the uncle of the deceased corroborates P. W. 1 in all material particulars and says that after marriage the members of the maternal family started demanding money and initially demand of money was fulfilled but later on it could not be and after sometime infliction of torture came to be perpetrated upon the victim. He says that on 29. 10. 2002, the victim came to his house with her daughter and narrated the incidents of torture on demand of money. In his cross-examination he has stated that the amount of Rs. 30,000/- was paid by the father of the deceased who incurred all the expenses of the marriage. He, of course, could not say the date when the incident of infliction of torture commenced. P. W. 3, another uncle of the deceased again adduced evidence in corroboration of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 and said that on 29. 1. 2002 the victim came to his house for the last time and told him about the demand of money which could not be fulfilled. It appears from cross-examination of P. W. 3 that the victim came to P. W. 1 s house on 29. 1. 2002 and left for her maternal home on 8. 2. 2002. On the night of 30. 1. 2002 the victim told him about the demand of money by the accused persons. P. W. 4 is a neighbour of P. W. 1 and a scribe of the FIR. 1. 2002 and left for her maternal home on 8. 2. 2002. On the night of 30. 1. 2002 the victim told him about the demand of money by the accused persons. P. W. 4 is a neighbour of P. W. 1 and a scribe of the FIR. It is his evidence that after marriage when victim would pay visit to his house she would complain of ill behaviour of the members of the matrimonial home on demand of money. It is his evidence further that he came to know about the incident of demand of money in November, 2001. He further says on 5. 2. 2002 the victim spoke over telephone to a member of the matrimonial home in this words "wherefrom she would get money", then he took the receiver and conversed with the husband Sukumar who told P. W. 4 not to send the victim without money. P. W. 7, uncle of the deceased said that for the last time on 29. 1. 2002, the victim came to his house of P. W. 1 and narrated the incident of torture of demand of money placed by the accused persons. He further says that before 29. 1. 2002 on several occasions the same story was repeated but he could not recollect the date correctly. P. W. 8, a neighbour of P. W. 1 said that the victim had bitter relation with the members of the matrimonial home and she showed her the sign of injury on her person and she was further asked to fetch money from her fathers house. In her cross-examination, the witness has said that the victim told her the allegations of demand of money and torture on 29. 1. 2002 for the last time. P. W. 9, another neighbour of P. W. 1 said that after living for sometime in her matrimonial home when the victim came to her fathers house she told her that the members of the matrimonial home did not give her food properly and she was used to be assaulted by them who wanted money from her. P. W. 10, the mother of the victim has giver a very elaborate exposition of allegations of torture and cruelty as was narrated to her by her daughter. P. W. 10, the mother of the victim has giver a very elaborate exposition of allegations of torture and cruelty as was narrated to her by her daughter. She said that sister-in-law Munta was habituated to snatch way the key of almirah frequently on the pretext of cleansing the almirah and would take saree and ornaments of her daughter from the almirah and when her daughter would raise protest, she was assaulted by the accused munta. Similar behaviour was also meted by the accused Nilima and Aparna. The accused Anil Patra asked her daughter to leave her house by taking from him Rs. 13,000/ -. Accused Soma Patra wanted the ornaments of her daughter. After returning on the occasion of Astamongala her daughter told her that the members of the matrimonial family were not good men. When her son-in-law would return home after duty he was instigated by other members and being instigated by other members and being instigated her son-in-law used to assault her daughter. She was asked to do all physical labour. Fifteen days before her death, her daughter came to his house and she explained the reason for her coming. She told that she was asked by the accused persons to bring money on the ground that expenses were incurred for treatment of her child. Her mother-in-law used to instigate her to take the recourse of death so that the said mother-in-law would be able to arrange the second marriage of her son. In her cross examination she had stated that incident of physical and mental torture commenced within seven days of marriage. She said that she did not pay Rs. 15,000/-to the victim for treatment of her child. (10.) SINCE I am hearing an application in revision against an order of acquittal I have to be very cautious and circumspect while considering the application, vis-a-vis, the evidence of the witnesses. The purpose of this judgment and order is definitely not to enquire whether on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses the case should end into a judgment and order of conviction or of sentence. The purpose of this judgment and order is definitely not to enquire whether on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses the case should end into a judgment and order of conviction or of sentence. At the cost of repetition it is made very clear that the purpose of this treatment is only to see whether the learned judge committed manifest illegality appeared on the face of the record so much so that if such illegality or perversity is allowed to stand it would result in miscarriage of justice or not. It is settled law by a catena of decisions of the supreme Court that the High Court will only interfere in revision where interest of public justice demands for correction of manifest illegality or prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The only endeavour of this Court is not to do rather assessment of evidence but to see whether there has been any assessment of evidence at all and whether the learned trial Court has analysed the totality of facts circumstances and evidence on record in his own way and after his own liking. The cases of D. Stefens v. Nosibolla reported in AIR 1951 sc 196 , Logandranath Jha v. Sri Poliai Lal Biswas reported in AIR 1951 SC 316 , Bansi Lal and Ors. v. Laxman Singh reported in AIR 1986 SC 1721 : 1986 c Cr LR (SC) 132, Bindeshwari Prasad @ B. P. Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar reported in 2002 (SCC Criminal) 1448, State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan singh Kuldip Singh Ahmed and Ors. reported in 2004 SCC (Ori) 2003 : (2005)1 c Cr LR (SC) 45, Satyajit Banerjee and Ors. v. State of West Bengal reported in 2005 SCC (Cr) 276 : (2005)1 C Cr LR (SC) 142, Surajmal Banthia and Ors. v. State of West Bengal reported in 2003 C Cr LR (Cal) 530, State of Rajasthan v. Tegh Bahadur reported in 2005 SCC (Cr) 218, Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2006)1 C Cr LR (SC) 414, Jayanta Kumar Guha v. The State of west Bengal reported in (2006)2 Cal LJ (Cr) 251 make it out clear that in exercising revisional jurisdiction under Article 401 of the Cr. P. C. in hearing revision against order of acquittal the Court does not act as 2nd Appellate power and cannot make minute examination of the entire evidence and it is only when there is manifest error on the record that the Court can certainly act to the aid of justice. (11.) MR. Subir Ganguly, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial Court has not at all considered the evidence of the witnesses and gave primacy of the FIR over the statements on oath of the witnesses which remained unshaken all through forgetting that an FIR cannot be expected to be a replica of evidence of the witnesses. It is submitted that when the victim died within 2 years 3 months of her marriage the learned Trial court forgot absolutely that when massive evidence has been led by the prosecution witnesses with respect to the charges the presumptions arising out of 113a and 113b of the Evidence Act could not be lost sight of Mr. Ganguly submits that P. W. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 all have very consistently deposed about physical and mental torture upon the victim by the accused persons and even when cross-examination of the I. O. could not be capitalized to bring about inconsistencies, learned trial Court at all did not scan the evidence. It is submitted that the learned trial Court in total disregard of evidence of 8 prosecution witnesses relied on evidence of P. W. 12 and P. W. 13 who are relations of the accused and who introduced a story that the defacto complainant and the members of his family demanded Rs. 4 lac after the death of the victim which is absolutely without any relevance to the facts in issue. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the trial Court lamented non examination of the father of the victim but forgot to notice that following affairs of the father of the victim with another lady he some after marriage deserted his home and severed naturally his ties with his original home and he was seen for the last time some time in November, 2001 and in such circumstances non examination of the father of the victim cannot be said to be willful or deliberate. It is further submitted that the trial Court did not take into consideration the written argument submitted before him by the learned counsels. It is submitted that where there has been no assessment of evidence at all and the learned trial Court misdirected itself to irrelevant materials leaving aside legally admissible evidence touching upon the facts in issue the Court certainly would interfere so that justice is not missed. (12.) MS. Kabita Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the State pointed out the facts in the judgment under revision but did not spell out whether the State was supporting or opposing the revision. (13.) MR. S. Sanyal appearing with Mr. S. Chatterjee and Mr. S. K. Das submitted that the Court should not act as an appellate Court so as to pick up the fallacious reasonings, if any, and in terms of the guidelines laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions the Court should restrain itself and dismiss the application on the ground that there was no illegality, no non-assessment of evidence and no misdirection of the Court to the irrelevant materials overlooked the relevant ones. (14.) IN the context of what have been said by the learned Advocates for the parties and of the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses let me examine how treatment has been made by the learned trial Court while assessing evidence. I have gone through the judgment and order of the learned trial court between the lines and I find that comments of the learned Judge on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are very scanty, lying scattered here and there and at page No. 9 of the judgment the learned trial Judge was not inclined to rely on the evidence of P. W. 1 on the ground that the evidence of p. W. 1 to the effect that the victim used to be sent to his house frequently to bring money on the ground that her husband had less income, that the victim used to be inflicted with torture that the accused husband has been the business of Potato while his other brothers were well off, that demand was pressed for dowry were not in the FIR and according to the learned Judge, the FIR takes, a very vital role although it is not a substantive piece of evidence. Now let us see what have been alleged in the FIR. Now let us see what have been alleged in the FIR. It would not be unjust for this Court to say at this stage that the FIR cannot be expected to be a verbatim reproduction before what the prosecution witnesses would like to say at a later point of time and it would be the replica of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. In the fir there is clear and categorical averment of the presentation of dowry in the form of money and case in the marriage, demand of money after Durga Puja, incomparable financial condition of the husband, vis-a-vis, all the other brothers, complainant having himself seen the accused persons quarrelling with her sister on the day after Bijaya Dasami, infliction of physical and mental torture by the members of the maternal family upon the deceased. I fail to understand whether the FIR was insufficient for the purpose of trial. What the witnesses have said are elaborations of the gist of the allegations in the FIR. FIR was lodged immediate after the death of the victim and it is not understood what led the learned Judge to say that more important facts should have been introduced in the FIR and evidence of the witnesses should be "after explanation method" in the light of the FIR. It could not be understood what the learned judge means to say by "explanation method". Learned Judge said that P. W. 2 said in evidence that on 29. 1. 2002 the victim came to their house for the last time and narrated how she was tortured on demand of money but this was not stated to the I. O. This discrepancy could have carried a great force if it was the fact that it was only P. W. 2 and nobody else who told the Court that the victim came to her fathers house on 29. 1. 2002. All the witnesses including the mother of the victim have said that 15 days before her death, more particularly 29. 1. 2002 the victim came to fathers house when she narrated to the members of her fathers family about the torture and demand of money. There is no suggestion to any of the witnesses by the defence that the victim did not come at all to her fathers house 15 days before her death. 1. 2002 the victim came to fathers house when she narrated to the members of her fathers family about the torture and demand of money. There is no suggestion to any of the witnesses by the defence that the victim did not come at all to her fathers house 15 days before her death. Learned Judge said that p. W. 3 did not tell the police that the victim came on 29. 1. 2002 and narrated to him about her torture on demand of money but did not tell it to the I. O. The question was not put to the I. O. whether P. W. 3 made or did not make the statement to him and unless the contradiction is elicited from I. O. it cannot be said that P. W. 3 did not make any such statement to the I. O. and extraction in the cross-examination of a village witness that he did not tell this and that to the I. O. without getting it confirmed from the I. O. with respect to those questions is improper. The learned Judge referred to some part of evidence of P. W. 3, p. W. 4 and compared the same with what they have or have been stated before the I. O. and thereby disbelieved their evidence. Learned Judge referred to the evidence of P. W. 7 who told that the victim came to her fathers house on 29. 1. 2002 for the last time. On the basis of evidence of P. W. 7, the learned judge was inclined to discard the very evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the last visit of the victim of her fathers house took place on 29. 1. 2002 on demand of money. Learned Judge said that P. W. 7 admitted in his crossexamination that the victim went to her matrimonial home on 29. 1. 2002 by leaving her paternal home. This is far from truth. On the other hand he is in his cross-examination stated that he did not state to the police that the victim left her fathers house on 29. 1. 02 and went to her matrimonial home and the witnesses has further stated in his cross-examination that the victim left her fathers house on 8. 2. 2002. The I O. said that P. W. 7 told him that the victim came to her fathers house on 24. 1. 1. 02 and went to her matrimonial home and the witnesses has further stated in his cross-examination that the victim left her fathers house on 8. 2. 2002. The I O. said that P. W. 7 told him that the victim came to her fathers house on 24. 1. 2002 but did not tell him that she came on 29. 1. 2002. This discrepancy of 24 with 29 does not signify that the P. W 7 did not tell at all to the I. O. that the victim did not come to her fathers house either on 24. 1. 2002 or 29. 1. 2002. All the witnesses have clearly stated that the victims last visit took place on 29. 1. 2002 which, in fact, could not be challenged in cross-examination effectively. Therefore, it was an unjust on the part of the learned Judge to mis-interpret evidence of P. W. 7 which, in fact, was not there. There was no admission of P. W. 7 in cross-examination that the victim went back to her matrimonial home on 29. 1. 2002. Again another blunder committed by the learned Judge is this that he wanted that the inquest report should have disclosed that the deceased came to her fathers house on 29. 1. 2001 and told the history of demand on dowry and torture and as the inquest report did not disclose any such material the learned Judge observed that "therefore the story of the prosecution is hardly believable because the witnesses to the inquest report did not tell in inquest report either before the police or the Magistrate these stories. " Law is well settled that inquest report should not and must not contain the statements of the witnesses regarding the fact in issue. The inquest report is intended to note down the injuries and the apparent cause of death. It is really shocking that the learned trial Judge desired the prosecution version in inquest report. Learned Judge referred to the photographs of marriage and observed that those photographs show that the father of the victim and the uncle of the victim were making Ashirbad to the accused Munta in her marriage. To say the least, this is not an appreciation of an evidence. This is misdirection of the learned Judge by the learned Judge himself. Munta is a member of the family of the accused. To say the least, this is not an appreciation of an evidence. This is misdirection of the learned Judge by the learned Judge himself. Munta is a member of the family of the accused. It is natural that howsoever bitter relations might be between the two families P. W. 1s family would be invited, and making customary Ashirbad to Munta cannot be said. to have any relevancy to the charges levelled against the accused persons. It cannot be said that merely because Munta was blessed on the occasion of her marriage by P. W. 1 s father, the prosecutions story of torture and demands of dowry is false. Learned Judge referred to Exbt. A and A 1 which are Fixed deposit certificates of UBI showing deposit of money in the joint name of the victim and her husband and these deposits were made on 4. 6. 2000 and 29. 10. 2001, in fact, as per evidence trouble started brewing after the Dasami puja of the year 2001 and these certificates are payable to either or survivor. Learned Judge observed that the complainant party demanded Rs. 4 lac after the death of the victim and threatened to set the house of the accused to fire and learned Judge has observed that there is no story of sympathy to the victim. Threatening the accused to set their house to fire or demand of Rs. 4 lac is an outcome of anger and vengeance and this alleged post death occurrence cannot be used to demolish evidence of the prosecution witnesses relating to pre death incident of alleged torture and alleged demand of money. Learned Judge wanted father of the victim to depose but the prosecution witness have not concealed that sometime after marriage father of the victim deserted the family on account of his affairs with a lady. This was overlooked by the learned Judge. The learned Judge again was swayed by a piece of evidence of P. W. 12 that the father of the victim because of her affair with a lady was beaten few days before the death of the victim and according to the learned judge it was submitted before him that the victim felt insulted and therefore committed suicide. The learned Judge again was swayed by a piece of evidence of P. W. 12 that the father of the victim because of her affair with a lady was beaten few days before the death of the victim and according to the learned judge it was submitted before him that the victim felt insulted and therefore committed suicide. It is not understood how far this finding simply on the basis of a solitary statement of P. W. 12 who is no other than a relation of the accused is permissible instead of assessing the voluminous evidence of the prosecution witnesses. (15.) HAVING gone through the judgment of the learned trial Court it appears that the entire treatment of the learned Judge has been to compare evidence of the witnesses with the statements to the I. O. and again evidence of the witnesses with the FIR and what was not in the FIR and what was not in the statements before the I. O. were not acceptable to the learned Judge. This perhaps is no assessment. (16.) WE find that the learned Judge made some observations beyond record and omitted to make assessment of evidence with reference to the evidence of the witnesses 1. The learned Judge held that there was no demand of dowry averred in the FIR and demand of money was mentioned in the FIR may not be further dowry but for any other reason. This is wholly surmise and conjecture and secondly having given a plain reading of the FIR it appears that in the FIR it has been averred that a cash of Rs. 30,000/-, 10 bhories of gold ornaments and a good number of utensils, furniture etc. were given but after Durga Puja the members of the matrimonial family of the deceased started creating pressure for fetching money but since he (defacto complainant) was not possessed of means he could not make any payment of money. In the context of this averment in the FIR it cannot be said that there was no demand of dowry by the accused persons and the whole evidence of the witnesses centers round the point that the victim who died within 2 yrs. 3 months of her marriage was subjected to torture and ill treatment over demands of dowry. 2. In the context of this averment in the FIR it cannot be said that there was no demand of dowry by the accused persons and the whole evidence of the witnesses centers round the point that the victim who died within 2 yrs. 3 months of her marriage was subjected to torture and ill treatment over demands of dowry. 2. In absence of any evidence the learned Judge surmised that the alleged demand of money may be on account of some other reason. The learned Judge did not at all make any appreciation of evidence of the prosecution witnesses as to whether the evidence of a good number of witnesses concerning perpetration of torture upon the victim on demands of money was true or false. 3. The learned Judge did not make any finding as to for what "any other reason" further demand of money was placed. 4. The learned Judge said with reference to the evidence of P. W. 1 that there was no evidence to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment on demand of dowry by the accused person as he did not tell that on 29. 1. 2002 the deceased came to his house and stated fact of demand of dowry and torture and on the other hand the P. W. 7 admitted in his cross-examination the victim went to her matrimonial home on 29. 1. 2002 by leaving her paternal home. This observation is absolutely beyond record and far from truth. P. W. 1 has said in his cross-examination that his sister came to his house and lived for a week from "29. 0. 2001". This date 29. 0. 2001 has been wrongly typed by the typist for which P. W. 1 was not responsible and the date "29" clearly signifies that the victim came to P. Ws house on 29th and all the other witnesses said that the victim came to the house of P. W. 1 on 29. 1. 2002. Therefore, it cannot be said that P. W. 1 did not tell in his evidence that on 29. 1. 2002 the deceased came to his house. 5. 1. 2002. Therefore, it cannot be said that P. W. 1 did not tell in his evidence that on 29. 1. 2002 the deceased came to his house. 5. Unlike the observation of the learned Judge, P. W. 1 has said that his sister told him that she was tortured by the in-laws physically and mentally on demands of money and whether the learned Judge was inclined to treat this piece of evidence to be true or false is upto him and this revisional Court cannot make any observation to that effect but the observation of the learned judge that there was no such evidence at all is absolutely beyond record. 6 As has been laid down in Kalyya perurnal v. State of Tamil Nadu. , air 2003 SC 3828 and also in Yashoda v. State of M. P. , (2004)3 SCC 98 : 2004 C Cr LR (SC) 640, the learned Judge ought to make an analysis or appreciation of evidence as to whether there was existence of any proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on alleged demand of dowry and the concerned death. And this is sine qua non of the charge under Section 304b of the l. P. C. 23. The learned Judges observation that P. W. 7 admitted in his cross examination that the victim came back to her maternal home on 29. 1. 2002 is contrary to the record. In his examination-in-chief P. W. 7 has categorically stated that the deceased who is his youngest niece came to his house on 29. 1. 2002 and narrated the story of torture and also about the demand of money made by the accused persons. He has further stated that prior to 29. 1. 2002 the members of his family were further told the same story on several occasions. In his cross-examination this witness says that the deceased left for her paternal home on 8. 2. 2002 while in his examination-in-chief he has stated that he was informed of the death of the victim on 15. 2. 2002. P. W. 7 has denied in his evidence in cross-examination that he did not tell the I. O. that on 29. 1. 2002 the deceased came to his house. P. W. 4 has said that the victim came to her brothers house on 29. 1. 2. 2002. P. W. 7 has denied in his evidence in cross-examination that he did not tell the I. O. that on 29. 1. 2002 the deceased came to his house. P. W. 4 has said that the victim came to her brothers house on 29. 1. 2002 and this has not been contradicted by the I. O. 8. There has not been any appreciation of evidence of P. W. 10 in the judgment of the learned Court below. The learned Judge reproduced the evidence of the witnesses without any analysis more particularly P. W 1 and p. W. 10 who are the brother and mother respectively of the deceased. 9. Demand of the learned Trial Court for examination of the father of the victim was illogical and irrational because of the fact and there is evidence that some time after marriage of the victim the father of the victim left his house following an extramarital affairs with another woman and normally in such situation it was not possible for the prosecution to produce the father of the victim to whom there could not be any report of torture by the victim shortly before her death. Disbelief of evidence of the prosecution witnesses on the ground that after the death of the victim the P. W. 1 or his other members of his family demanded a sum of Rs. 4 lac is curious because such a demand if at all was true was after the death of the victim and it came out in the form of suggestion which has been denied by the prosecution witnesses. 10. The demand of the trial Court that the inquest report should have contained the prosecution case and allegation of torture on demand of dowry is legally untenable. Reference in this connection may be had to three Judge bench Decision in Radha Mohan Singh and Anr. v. State of U. P. with Kgushal kjshpre Singh and Anr. v. State of U. P. , 2006 AIR SCW 421. 11. Photograph showing the presence of the father of the victim in the marriage ceremony of Munta can have hardly any nexus with the fact in issue and all these show that the learned Judge bypassed all material evidence and jumped upon some irrelevant and trifling issues. v. State of U. P. , 2006 AIR SCW 421. 11. Photograph showing the presence of the father of the victim in the marriage ceremony of Munta can have hardly any nexus with the fact in issue and all these show that the learned Judge bypassed all material evidence and jumped upon some irrelevant and trifling issues. (17.) THESE are the reasons which according to me are sufficient to hold that there has been gross miscarriage of justice and non-appreciation of evidence and faulty assumptions and misconceptions of law. (18.) I allow this revisional application and remand the case back to the learned Trial Court requiring of him to write a fresh judgment upon hearing the learned Advocates for the parties with appreciation of evidence in his own way.