JUDGMENT : ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. 1. FACTS Chandana Ghosh was the daughter of Radhaballav Ghosh, the petitioner above named. Chandana got married with Bipul Ghosh son of Krishnagopal Ghosh @ Buddhadeb Ghosh. The marriage was a negotiated one. As per the demand, Radhaballav gave Rs. 45,000/-, 6 Bhoris gold and other gifts as dowry. The in-laws however, were not satisfied. They used to torture Chandana. They raised further demand and threatened Chandana with dire consequence that in case of failure to meet the demand she would be killed. Radhaballav neither did lodge any complaint with the Police nor take legal steps against the in-laws. Fact remains, Chandana lived her marital life for 5 years during her lifetime. On 29th Sravan, corresponding to August 2004 Chandana went to her parental home and complained to Radhaballav that Krishnagopal the father-in-law, Sabitri mother-in-law, Prasanta brother-in-law, Sumitra Sister-in-law (wife of Prasanta) inflicted physical torture upon her. She could manage to flee from her marital place, otherwise she could have been killed. The in-laws threatened her that whenever she would come back, she would be set on fire. Radhaballav persuaded Chandana to go back to her marital place by describing the incident as a trifle one. Chandana returned to her marital home and within a few days i.e on August 22, 2004 she died an unnatural death. Upon being informed, Radhaballav along with his relatives and neighbours rushed to the place and found Chandana being brutally killed by setting her on fire. He lodged a complaint with the Police. The Police arrested all the in-laws being husband Bipul, his brother Prasanta, his wife Sumitra as also parents Krishnagopal and Sabitri and charged them under Section 498(A) read with Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded innocence and opted to be tried. 2. EVIDENCE The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses to support the prosecution story. PW-1 (Radhaballav Ghosh) The witness reiterated what he had started in his complaint. He further improved his statement by saying that he escorted Chandana to her marital place few days before her death when she came to her parental place to make complain against the in-laws. In cross-examination, he admitted not having lodged any contemporaneous complaint about torture earlier to the death of Chandana. PW-2 (Kushal Ghosh) The witness put his signature on the inquest report. PW-3 (Chand Majhi) The witness was sitting in a tea stall. In cross-examination, he admitted not having lodged any contemporaneous complaint about torture earlier to the death of Chandana. PW-2 (Kushal Ghosh) The witness put his signature on the inquest report. PW-3 (Chand Majhi) The witness was sitting in a tea stall. After hearing hue and cry he rushed to the house of the accused and found Chandana dead in the kitchen room. PW-4 (Uday Chand Ghosh) The witness was also a neighbour. Hearing a hue and cry he rushed to the house and found Chandana being lifted by some persons from the kitchen to her room. PW-5 (Mihir Ghosh) The witness was the uncle of Chandana. He supported PW-1 and corroborated him. In addition, he deposed that one day he had gone to the marital home of Chandana where her-in-laws drove him out of the house. This part of the evidence however did not find any support from any one. He admitted that he had not divulged the incident to the investigating officer. PW-6 (Shyamsundar Dutta) The witness was the neighbour of Radhaballav. He scribed the complaint as dictated by Radhaballav. He did not have personal knowledge of dowry being given in the marriage. Chandana used his telephone whenever she would come to her parental place. At that time she disclosed that her in-laws used to torture her. She told this 10/12 days before her death. He identified Bipul on dock, however could not identify others. PW-7 (Chaitali Ghosh) The witness was the aunt of Chandana. She supported the prosecution story about payment of dowry at the time of marriage. She also supported the story of further demand. 10/12 days before her death Chandana visited Chaitali’s house and disclosed that her in-laws were creating pressure upon her for bringing more money. She however admitted in cross-examination that she did not talk to anyone as regards her statement before the Court that she divulged for the first time in Court. PW-8, PW-9, PW-10 & PW-11 (Asish Bhattacharjee, Bidhan Chandra Mondal Ariti Hazra & Dilip Paramanick) PW-8 acted as a priest. PW-9 informed Radhaballav about the incident of death. PW-10 was a maid servant of Radhaballav who witnessed the marriage PW- 11 acted as a barbar in the marriage. PW-12 (Dhirendra Nath Ghosh) The witness was a neighbour of Radhaballav. He invited Chandana on the occasion of Kali Puja. PW-9 informed Radhaballav about the incident of death. PW-10 was a maid servant of Radhaballav who witnessed the marriage PW- 11 acted as a barbar in the marriage. PW-12 (Dhirendra Nath Ghosh) The witness was a neighbour of Radhaballav. He invited Chandana on the occasion of Kali Puja. He also went to Chandana’s in-laws place for inviting them on that occasion after one year of her marriage. The witness did not make any positive statement about the torture, however denied a suggestion that the accused did not torture Chandana or that Chandana never told him anything about torture. PW-13, PW-14 and PW-16 (Chandra Sekhar Nath, Mirza Mir Kashem & Biswanath Moulik) The witnesses acted as investigating officers at different stages. The witness (PW-15) seized container of kerosene oil and a lighter. He held the inquest. Another inquest was held by a Magistrate. PW- 15 (Dr. B.N. Kahali) The witness was posted as the Head of the Department Forensic Medicine Basdhaman Medical C0llege and Hospital when Dr. Anita Das, Demonstrator of the said department conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body. The post mortem doctor found only burn injury over the dead body. She opined that the death was due to burn injury, ante mortem in nature. In cross-examination, the witness observed that post mortem report did not rule out the injury being accidental in nature. 3. JUDGEMENT The learned Judge upon considering the evidence so discussed above came to conclusion that the accused were not guilty of the offence and as such set them at liberty at once. Being aggrieved, Radhaballav filed the instant application challenging the order of acquittal. 4. CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT Mr Abhijit Basu appearing for the petitioner contended that the evidence so came out during trial was sufficient enough to sign the Judgment of the conviction. The learned Judge erred in appreciating the said aspect. Elaborating his argument Mr. Basu contended that the learned Judge heavily relied on the medical evidence where the professor opined that the possibility of accident could not be ruled out. Such statement of the doctor merely raised a possibility of accident in his opinion. Such possibility could not demolish the concrete evidence led by the witnesses so discussed above. According to Mr. Basu, merely because the witnesses who supported the prosecution story were relations of the victim such evidence could not be discarded. Such statement of the doctor merely raised a possibility of accident in his opinion. Such possibility could not demolish the concrete evidence led by the witnesses so discussed above. According to Mr. Basu, merely because the witnesses who supported the prosecution story were relations of the victim such evidence could not be discarded. He also contended that on a plain reading of the evidence it would appear that those evidence were truthful to inspire confidence in Court. Mr. Basu relied on the following decisions : 1) (2007) Volume-15 Supreme Court Cases Page-415 (Raja Lal Singh–vs-State of Jharkahnd) 2)(2009) Volume-11 Supreme Court Cases Page-157 (Deen Dayal and Others -Vs- State of Uttar Pradesh) Mr. Basu prayed for quashing of the said judgment and order of acquittal and corresponding remand for retrial. 5. CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT Opposing the application, Mr. Milon Mukherjee being ably assisted by Mr Subhasis Dasgupta contended that the learned Judge on appreciation of evidence came to an ultimate conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused and thus acquitted them of the charges. This Court in its revisional jurisdiction, was not competent to sit on appeal over the said decision. Mr Dasgupta, learned counsel relied on the decision in the case of All India Reporter (1975) Supreme Court Page- 1854 Pakalpati Narayana Gajapathi Raju -Vs- Boma Palli Peda Appadu and another, wherein the Apex Court observed that the revisional power could only be exercised in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice required interference for correction of manifest illegality or prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. 6. MY VIEW I have carefully considered the evidence as well as the judgment and order of acquittal impugned herein. Had I been a Court of appeal it would have been proper for me to re-appreciate the evidence bereft of the judgment and order impugned and without being influenced by such finding. In a criminal appeal, it is the duty of the Court to analyse the evidence and come to an independent finding and then examine the Judgment of the Court below whether the said Judgment suffers from any lacuna. The revisional Court, in my view, however lacks such wide power. As observed by the Apex Court, it is sparingly used that too, in rearest of rear cases. The revisional Court, in my view, however lacks such wide power. As observed by the Apex Court, it is sparingly used that too, in rearest of rear cases. Coming to the present context, PW-1 did not lodge any complaint prior to the death of Chandana during her lifetime. He improved his statement during trial which however found corroboration from his brother-in-law and a neighbour. His brother-in-law being PW-5 and PW-3 and 4 being the neighours of the in-laws however did not speak about any torture. No corroboration came from any neighbour of Chandana at her marital place. The learned Judge analysed the evidence in his own way. It might be said that there could have been another view on the basis of analysis of the evidence done by another person. Such probable story might be more convincing than the present one. The revisional Court, in my view, is not competent to substitute the other probable finding by upsetting the order of acquittal. On a plain reading of the judgment I do not find any manifest illegality committed by the learned Judge while appreciating the evidence and coming to an ultimate finding. Hence, the revisional Court’s interference is not called for. In the case of Raja Lal Singh the Apex Court observed that when the victim died in her marital place it was for her husband to explain how she had died. In the said case, the victim found dead hanging by a Sari with a ceiling fan in her in-laws place. The Apex Court observed that there had been nexus between the death of the victim and the dowry related harassment. Hence, the conviction of the husband was upheld. In the case of Deen Dayal (Supra), the Apex Court considered the phraseology “soon before her death” and observed that once the dowry demand and consequent cruelty and harassment was clearly established ingredient of Section 304(B) was fully satisfied attracting conviction under the said provision. In the instant case, the victim lived her marital life for long five years without a single complaint being lodged with the Police. The victim died on August 22, 2004. According to her father, she was inflicted torture few days before her death. When she rushed to her parents and made a complaint her father PW-1 persuaded her to go back to her in-laws describing the incident a trifle one. The victim died on August 22, 2004. According to her father, she was inflicted torture few days before her death. When she rushed to her parents and made a complaint her father PW-1 persuaded her to go back to her in-laws describing the incident a trifle one. In the case of Raja Lal Singh (Supra), the victim came back after three months of her stay at in-laws place as she was subjected to torture on account of dowry demand. The medical evidence proved that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging which was suicidal in nature. In this context the Apex Court held that the husband owed a responsibility to explain as to how the victim had died. Similarly, in the case of Deen Dayal (Supra), the Apex Court observed that the evidence of the brother and mother of the deceased left no room for doubt in regard to the demand of dowry and cruelty and harassment suffered by the victim in connection with the demand. Pertinent to note, both these cases relate to regular appeals to the Apex Court from the order of conviction suffered in a regular appeal before the High Court. These two decisions, in my view, would be of no assistance to me in deciding the case in hand sitting in revisional jurisdiction. 7. RESULT The revisional application fails and is hereby dismissed.