Judgment 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 18-4-2001, rendered by the Court of Additional sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide which it acquitted the accused (now respondent) for the offence, punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The law was set in motion by Gurdev kaur, mother of Iqbal Kaur by making a statement Ex. PA, dated 4-10-1998, on the basis whereof the FIR was registered. According to the allegations, contained in Ex. PA, the daughter of the complainant, Iqbal kaur, was married to Gurmukh Singh, about one year earlier. On 30-3-1998 the complainant went to Sweden to see her mother and in her absence, Gurmukh Singh-accused started living in her house of his own. Iqbal kaur used to tell the complainant on telephone, that Gurmukh Singh, accused, had been harassing her. He (Gurmukh Singh)used to quarrel with her daughter. He also gave her beatings to compel her to ask her mother that the house should be transferred, in his name so that he may be able to open a shop in the outer room thereof. When Iqbal kaur told her mother about the extreme harassment at the hands of Gurmukh singh, the complainant returned to India. A letter was written by the complainant to her brother Jaswinder Singh, residing in Sweden who wrote a letter to Mohinder Kaur, sister of the complainant, residing at phagwara and asked her to inquire about the matter. Mohinder Kaur with her husband Swaran Singh, came to the complainant. The complainant took Vijay Kumar, who was a mediator, in arranging the marriage and contacted Gurmukh Singh accused. He advised Gurmukh Singh that the complainant had two daughters and would discuss the matter with the other daughter as well. The complainant also told Gurmukh Singh that during her life time, she will not transfer her house, in favour of anybody. Gurmukh Singh, remained adamant regarding the transfer of house, by the complainant, in his favour. Thereafter, Gurmukh singh took Iqbal Kaur to his village Dhuleta. It was stated that he continued harassing iqbal Kaur to compel the complainant to get the house transferred, in his name. Iqbal kaur told her mother (complainant) that she should fulfill the demand of Gurmukh Singh, regarding the transfer of her house, in his name, otherwise, he (Gurmukh Singh) would kill her. 3. It was stated that he continued harassing iqbal Kaur to compel the complainant to get the house transferred, in his name. Iqbal kaur told her mother (complainant) that she should fulfill the demand of Gurmukh Singh, regarding the transfer of her house, in his name, otherwise, he (Gurmukh Singh) would kill her. 3. It was further stated that on 21-9-1998 iqbal Kaur died. Gurmukh Singh told the complainant that there was some trouble, in the abdomen of Iqbal Kaur, as a result whereof, she died. On enquiry, the complainant came to know that Gurmukh singh killed Iqbal Kaur, as she had not transferred the house in his favour. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned. 4. On his appearance, in the Court of the Committing Magistrate, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. After the case was received by commitment, charge under sections 304-B, 498-A and 201 of the Indian penal Code, was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Dr. Gian Singh, PW-1, Vijay kumar, PW-2, Dr. Hari Singh, PW-3, Gurdev kaur, PW-4, Mohinder Kaur, PW-5, Udia karan, PW-6, Swaran Singh, PW-7 and Dr. Promila Jindal, PW-8. Thereafter, the additional Public Prosecutor for the State closed the prosecution evidence. 6. The statement of the accused, under sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. It was stated by him that he had cordial relations with his wife. It was further stated by him that his wife (Iqbal Kaur) died due to some hole in the uterus i. e. uterus perforation and not due to the administration of poisonous substance. It was further stated by him that she did not die, otherwise, than under normal circumstances. It was further stated by him that the complainant had been blackmailing him after the death of Iqbal Kaur, and was trying to extract huge amount from him. 7. In his defence, the accused examined mulakh Raj, Constable, DW-1, Amarjit, DW-2 and Karam Chand, DW-3. Thereafter, the accused closed the defence evidence. 8. It was further stated by him that the complainant had been blackmailing him after the death of Iqbal Kaur, and was trying to extract huge amount from him. 7. In his defence, the accused examined mulakh Raj, Constable, DW-1, Amarjit, DW-2 and Karam Chand, DW-3. Thereafter, the accused closed the defence evidence. 8. After hearing the Additional Public prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, acquitted the accused, as stated hereinbefore. 9. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment of acquittal, the instant revision-petition was filed by the complainant-revision petitioner. 10. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, arid have gone through and perused the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 11. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that the trial Court was wrong in acquitting the accused. He further submitted that two ingredients required for constituting the offence, punishable under sec. 304-B of the Indian Penal Code i. e. Iqbal Kaur died within seven years of her marriage, and that she was subjected to cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry, soon before her death, were proved. He, however, admitted that the death of Iqbal kaur was neither suicidal, nor on account of burns nor on account of administration of poisonous substance. He frankly admitted that the death of Iqbal Kaur was on account of the perforation of uterus. He further submitted that the judgment of acquittal, being perverse is liable to be set aside. 12. The trial Court acquitted the accused, on the following grounds :- 1. The prosecution failed to prove that iqbal Kaur died, otherwise, than under normal circumstances.2. The prosecution failed to prove that iqbal Kaur was subjected to cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry, at any point of time, or soon before her death.3. The prosecution failed to prove that the accused caused any evidence of the commission of offence, disappear, or gave any information, relevant to that offence, which he knew or believed to be false. 13 For constituting the offence, punishable under Sec.304-B of the Indian penal Code, the prosecution was required to prove beyond doubt, that the death of a married woman took place, within seven years of her marriage, otherwise, than under normal circumstances, and soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry. 13 For constituting the offence, punishable under Sec.304-B of the Indian penal Code, the prosecution was required to prove beyond doubt, that the death of a married woman took place, within seven years of her marriage, otherwise, than under normal circumstances, and soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry. Only after the proof of these ingredients, by the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt, that presumption under Sec.113-B of the indian Evidence Act, could be drawn against the accused, that he committed the dowry death. No doubt, it was held by the trial court that the death of Iqbal Kaur, took place within seven years of her marriage. However, the trial Court held that the remaining two ingredients, were not proved. Dr. Hari singh, PW-3 examined Iqbal Kaur on 29-9-1998, in the morning hours. At that time, she was already on I. V. glucose drip. On examination, he found that she was under severe shock and, thus, she was referred to dayanand Medical College and Hospital, ludhiana. He proved entry Ex. PW-3/a, made in the register, regarding the arrival of the patient. During the course of cross-examination, it was stated by him, that he had diagnosed her the case of hypotension that is shock. He also admitted during the course of cross-examination, that after uterine perforation, a patient could also go into shock. Dr. Promila Jindal, Lecturer, Obst. and Gynae Dayanand Medical College, ludhiana, while appearing as, PW-8, stated that Iqbal Kaur was a case of nulligravide with peritonitis with shock (specific shock ). During the course of cross-examination, it was made clear by her, that the death of Iqbal kaur, occurred, on account of uterine perforation. She further made it clear, that it was not a case of poisoning and hence, no treatment was given. Under these circum-stances, post-mortem examination on the dead body was not conducted. The trial court, on careful and cautious scrutiny of the medical evidence, came to the conclusion, that Iqbal Kaur, died as a natural death i. e. on account of perforation of uterus. On the basis of the evidence of Gurdev Kaur, pw-4, Mohinder Kaur, PW-5, and Swaran singh, PW-6, the trial Court also came to the conclusion that Iqbal Kaur was never treated with cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry, soon before her death. On the basis of the evidence of Gurdev Kaur, pw-4, Mohinder Kaur, PW-5, and Swaran singh, PW-6, the trial Court also came to the conclusion that Iqbal Kaur was never treated with cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry, soon before her death. The trial Court was, on the basis of the evidence, also came to the conclusion, that since all the relatives of Iqbal Kaur were present, at the time of her cremation, the question of furnishing of false information, regarding the death of Iqbal Kaur, or causing disappearance of any evidence, regarding the alleged commission of offence, did not at all arise. The findings recorded by the trial Court, are based on the correct appreciation of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. The findings of the trial Court, that the accused did not commit any offence, are neither illegal, nor perverse. Even otherwise, the High court, in its revisional jurisdiction, is not required to re-appreciate and reappraise the evidence, to reach a finding different, from the trial Court, at the instance of a private party. In its revisional jurisdiction, at the instance of a private party, the Court exercises only a limited jurisdiction, and cannot act as an Appellate Court, which has a much wider jurisdiction to go into the questions of fact and law, and to convert an order of acquittal into one of conviction. In bindeshwari Prasad Singh alias B. P. Singh and others V/s. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)and another, 2002 (4) RCR (Cri) 61 (SC) : (2002 Cri LJ 3788), their Lordship of the apex Court observed that, in the absence of any legal infirmity, either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there is no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Since the findings of the trial Court do not suffer from any illegality, perversity or infirmity, no ground, whatsoever, is made out, to interfere with the same. 14. For the reaspns recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Petition dismissed.