JUDGMENT : ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE. J: Anju (alias) Guddi was married to Nakuleshwar on June 29, 1999. Since after marriage, Nakuleshwar and his other members of the family subjected Anju to physical and mental torture. On June 24, 2000, Nakuleshwar informed Nuna Pal, the sister of Anju, that Anju had fallen down and had been taken to nursing home in a serious condition. He later on informed that Anju had been taken to Kharagpur State Hospital, where she had found her sister dead at the emergency. She lodged a complaint at the Police Station. Anju was in the family way for six months before her death. According to Nuna, she had firm belief that Anju had died due to mental and physical torture by her in-laws. According to Nuna, Anju used to tell her that Nakuleshwar was in the habit of coming home late at night and having illicit relationship with another woman. The Police initiated a case under Section 498A read with Section 304B/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code against Nakuleshwar and other inmates of the house being his mother, two sisters and others. On completion of the investigation, the Police issue a charge sheet implicating altogether seven accused who faced trial after pleading innocence. The learned Magistrate framed the charges under Section 498A read with Section 304B / 34 of the Indian Penal Code and in the alternative, Section 302 / 34 thereof. The accused in their examinations under Section-313 stated that Anju had fallen down in the bathroom. She had been beaten up in her paternal home by her eldest brother, on the issue of registration of an immovable property. According to them, Anju was physically weak as she was carrying child in the womb. Prosecution examined 15 witnesses. Nuna, PW-1 supported her complaint. According to her, the in-laws demanded Rs. 40,000/-, however, they could pay 10,000/- only because of financial strigancy. The balance money remained unpaid. She admitted that initially there had been good relation between the couple. Things changed when Nakuleshwar started coming late at night having extra marital affair. Anju was deprived food. She was subjected to torture by the accused especially mother-in-law and sister-in- law. She felt insecure. Hence, her mother gave one room registered in her name 10 / 15 days before her death. She left for her marital home on June 21, 2000. Things changed when Nakuleshwar started coming late at night having extra marital affair. Anju was deprived food. She was subjected to torture by the accused especially mother-in-law and sister-in- law. She felt insecure. Hence, her mother gave one room registered in her name 10 / 15 days before her death. She left for her marital home on June 21, 2000. Nuna got the information from Nakuleshwar as stated in the complaint. During cross-examination, Nuna agreed that Nakuleshwar used to repair electronic goods, and used to work in the night also on calls. She however, feigned ignorance about the controversy, Anju had with her brother, in her parental home. PW- 2 and 3 the neghbours turned hostile. PW-5, mother of the victim deposed that the dowry demand had been Rs. 80,000/-, out by which 10,000/- had been paid in cash and 30,000/- by way of kinds, balance 40,000/-was due to be paid. Significant to note, there was material contradiction between the mother and the daughter being PW- 1 and 5 on this score. PW-5 also admitted that she had registered a room in favour of Anju. On June 21, her father left her in her marital home and on June 24, she got information about the unfortunate incident from her daughter Nuna. PW-6, another sister Amrita Sinha supported her mother PW-5 on the issue of dowry. According to her, since Anju felt insecure room was registered in her name in lieu of outstanding sum of Rs. 40,000/-. PW- 8, Autopsy Surgeon found injuries on the person of the victim. After examining the F.S.L Report he finally opined that the cause of death was injury mentioned in the Post Mortem Report. In cross-examination, he admitted that the injury could be out of heamatoma being caused in case of the scalp coming in contact with any blunt object. PW-11, the brother of the victim was also consistent with her mother on the dowry. He also supported the case of transfer of room in favour of Anju by her mother. At the time of inquest PW-11, however, complained that there had been dowry demand for Rs. 80,000/- out of which 10,000/- had been paid. Court examined two witnesses. CW-1, the father of the victim deposed that he had accompanied Anju to her in-laws. He waited there for 10 / 15 minutes, none talked to him. At the time of inquest PW-11, however, complained that there had been dowry demand for Rs. 80,000/- out of which 10,000/- had been paid. Court examined two witnesses. CW-1, the father of the victim deposed that he had accompanied Anju to her in-laws. He waited there for 10 / 15 minutes, none talked to him. He however, did not make any complain to the Police before or after the death of Anju, against her in-laws. CW-2, the eldest brother deposed that his mother had given one room to Anju. He however denied that he had beaten up Anju, being annoyed on the issue of transfer of room by the mother. Significant to note, the Autopsy Surgeon deposed that some of the injuries were old. Analyzing the above evidence, the learned Judge came to conclusion that the suspicion raised in the mind of the Court could not be successfully removed by the prosecution and the accused were entitled to benefit of doubt. He signed the judgment of acquittal. Hence, this application for revision. Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that since the death occurred in her marital home the accused being her in-laws owed a responsibility to explain how the death had been caused. In absence of such explanation, the learned Judge should have relied on the deposition of the witnesses and signed the judgment of conviction. According to Mr. Chatterjee, explanation not forth coming from the accused, was certainly an incriminating evidence which the learned Judge failed to appreciate. He relied on two decisions of the Apex Court:- (i) 2004, Criminal Law Journal, Page No. 3115 (Ram Briksh Singh and others-Vs-Ambika Yadav & Another) (ii) 1999, Supreme Court cases, (Criminal) Page 1311 (Gurshinder Singh –Vs- Joga Singh and Another) Opposing the application Ms. Amita Gaur, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties being led by Mr. Prabir Mitra, contended as follows:- (i) Anju came back from her parental home three days before her death whereas substantial injuries were certified by the doctor being more than seven days old. Hence, it was conclusively proved that Anju had been subjected to physical torture at her parental place. (ii) The prosecution contended that she had been deprived of food whereas the Autopsy Surgeon had found some semi digested food in her stomach. (iii) The demand of dowry did not have any corroboration from any independent witness. Hence, it was conclusively proved that Anju had been subjected to physical torture at her parental place. (ii) The prosecution contended that she had been deprived of food whereas the Autopsy Surgeon had found some semi digested food in her stomach. (iii) The demand of dowry did not have any corroboration from any independent witness. In any event, no complaint was ever made on such issue prior to her death. iv) The brother-in-law and sister-in-law were in separate mass and hence could not be blamed for the alleged offence. (v) The alleged misbehavior was based upon surmise and conjecture and did not have any ample proof. Ms. Gaur relied on the following Apex Court decisions:- (i) 2004, Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) Page 1468 (Ashok Vishnu Davare –Vs- State of Maharashtra) (ii) 2004, Supreme Court Cases (Criminal), Page 458 (Mungeshwar prasad Chaurasia and another –Vs- State of Bihar) (iii) 2004, Supreme Court Cases (Criminal), Page 2057 (Balwant Singh and another – Vs- State of Punjab) (iv) 2006, (Volume-I), Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) Page 660 (Tirath Kumari alias Raj Rani and another – Vs- State of Haryana) v 2008, (Volume-I) Supreme Court Cases (Criminal), Page 172 (Biswajit Halder alias Babu Halder and others –Vs- State of West Bengal) On a close analysis of the evidence as discussed above, we find that a consistent case of dowry was made. However, the prosecution failed to relate the same with the torture. Torture did not find any corroboration from any independent witness. More over the relatives also could not convincingly state about the torture by giving particulars of the same. Their evidence on that score was as vague as possible. Their evidence rightly did not inspire confidence in Court on that score. The suspicion in the mind of the Court, particularly of the old injury, was not removed. We cannot over look the fact that shop room was registered in the name of the deceased victim and to that extent in-laws did not get any direct benefit. The medical evidence also belied deprivation of food. It was unsafe to sign the judgment of conviction. In the case of Rambriksh (Supra) the Apex Court relied on the piece of evidence where accused forcibly dragged the victim into their house by saying that the deceased would be cut into pieces and such evidence found corroboration from the independence witnesses. The medical evidence also belied deprivation of food. It was unsafe to sign the judgment of conviction. In the case of Rambriksh (Supra) the Apex Court relied on the piece of evidence where accused forcibly dragged the victim into their house by saying that the deceased would be cut into pieces and such evidence found corroboration from the independence witnesses. The Police recovered the dead body after breaking open the door of the house. The Apex Court affirmed the judgment of conviction. In the present case no witness came forward to support the prosecution, mere statement that she was subjected to physical and mental torture on account of dowry, that too, by the relatives, was not sufficient. In the case of Gurshinder Singh (Supra), the Apex Court observed that the case required detailed scrutiny when there was no appeal by the State from the order of acquittal and summery dismissal of a revisional application by the High Court was not justified. This is well settled principle of law that the High Court was competent to entertain revisional application at the instance of the defacto complainant against an order of acquittal. However, the scope of revision is limited to the extent that Court could not convert the said acquittal into conviction. It could only remand when the said judgment suffered from inherent lacuna or flagrant injustice. To come to such a conclusion that there had been inherent lacuna or injustice, the Court would certainly go into evidence. But such scrutiny was restricted to finding of inherent lacuna. Reappraisal of evidence as a court of appeal was however, not permitted. In this regard, may I rely upon the decision in the case of Ashok Vishnu Davare (Supra) and Baldeb Singh (Supra) where the Apex Court was of the view that such alleged torture should have a link to a recent incident to support the phraseology “soon before her death”. In the instant case, no evidence came out that soon before her death there was any demand for dowry or that there was any physical or mental torture being backed up by cogent evidence. The lady might be shocked because of her husband’s alleged illicit relationship. However, the name of the lady with whom, he maintained such alleged relationship did not come in evidence. The lady might be shocked because of her husband’s alleged illicit relationship. However, the name of the lady with whom, he maintained such alleged relationship did not come in evidence. Even if, the lady was shocked and committed suicide on being depressed her in-laws or her husband, as the case may be, could not be booked either under Section 304B or under Section 306. The revisional application fails is hereby dismissed. Urgent Xerox certified copy will be given to the parties, if applied for.