JUDGMENT : ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE. J: In or about 2002 Madhabi Ghosh married Khadim Chandra Ghosh of village Barabelun, Police Station Bhatar, in the district of Burdwan. Few days after her marriage Khadim and his mother Gayatri started inflicting torture upon Madhabi both physically and mentally. Their grievance was that the gold ornaments were not given in time. Subsequently, the ornaments were given to the accused. Even then, the torture continued. The brother-in-law Utpal and sister-in-law Chaina also inflicted torture upon Madhabi. On January 11, 2006 Madhabi committed suicide. She took poison and subsequently breathed her last at Burdwan Hospital. Three days before her death Madhabi was not provided with any food by the accused, on the contrary she was given a container of poison so that she could commit suicide. The father of Madhabi lodged a written complaint with Bhatar Police Station on the next day being January 12, 2006. Police initiated a criminal proceeding as against the accused under Section 498A read with Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Ultimately charges were framed under Section 498A read with Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty and opted to be tried. Prosecution examined altogether fourteen witnesses. PW-1 Srishtidhar Ghosh, PW-2 Bablu Ghosh, PW-3 Raghunath Ghosh being the father, brother-in-law and brother respectively of the victim supported the case of the prosecution, so were PW-7 Baidyanath Banerjee and PW-8 Kalachand Pramanik being the Priest and Barber involved in the marriage. Other independent witnesses being PW-4 Netai Chandra Ghosh, PW-5 Ajoy Pathak and PW-6 Milan Ghosh turned hostile. They feigned ignorance about the cause of the death of the victim. The Autopsy Surgeon (PW-12) confirmed that the death was caused due to poisoning. The learned Additional Session Judge, Second Court, Burdwan scrutinized the evidence and came to a finding that no convincing, either oral or documentary, evidence came on record to substantiate the allegation of dowry. The learned Judge observed that the evidence of the relatives of the victim did not inspire confidence on Court relating to the alleged offence under Section 498A. On Section 306, the learned Judge observed that F.S.L Report did not come in evidence and in absence of the same the Autopsy Surgeon could not confirm whether the death was homicidal or accidental or suicidal in nature. On Section 306, the learned Judge observed that F.S.L Report did not come in evidence and in absence of the same the Autopsy Surgeon could not confirm whether the death was homicidal or accidental or suicidal in nature. The learned Judge observed that presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act could not be drawn. Hence the accused were entitled to order of acquittal. The learned Judge discharged all the accused from the charges brought against them as referred to above. Hence, this revisional application by the defacto complainant. Mr. Arup Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing in support of the application contended that it was not the quantity but quality of the evidence that mattered. According to Mr. Chatterjee, the evidence of the father should have inspired confidence in Court. He prayed for quashing of the order of acquittal coupled with an order of remand so that the prosecution could proceed afresh. Opposing the application, Mr. Srikanta Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, contended that although the relatives of the victim complained about physical torture the doctor could not find any injury on the person of the victim. Mr. Dutta further contended that the learned Judge was convinced that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the element of dowry involved in the marriage. Once the case of dowry could not be proved Section 498A could not have any application. In any event, the plea of physical or mental torture was also not proved. He drew my attention to the FIR and/or written complaint and contended that the doctor, who attended the victim at the hospital, was also not examined. He contended that no previous complaint was lodged either by the victim or her relatives prior to the date of the present complaint. He contended that usually the victim being a lady would disclose her miseries to her mother. Significantly enough, mother was not examined. To support his contention Mr. He contended that no previous complaint was lodged either by the victim or her relatives prior to the date of the present complaint. He contended that usually the victim being a lady would disclose her miseries to her mother. Significantly enough, mother was not examined. To support his contention Mr. Dutta relied on the following decisions:- (i) All India Reporter 1984 Supreme Court Page 1622 (Sharad Birdhichand Sarda – VS- State of Maharashtra) (ii) All India Reporter Supreme Court Page-1830 (Balram Prasad Agrawal –VS- State of Bihar and Others) (iii) All India Reporter 1997 Supreme Court Page-3111 (State of Maharashtra –VS-Ashok Chotelal Shukla) (iv) 1997 Volume-VI Supreme Court Cases Page-171 (Vijender –VS- State of Delhi) When someone loses his dearest or nearest one and is under the impression that the accused was responsible for his/her death he would consciously or unconsciously exaggerate to strengthen his impression and in the way make himself unreliable before the Court. Paragraph 48 of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (Supra) would support my view. The said paragraph is quoted below:- “Before discussing the evidence of the witnesses we might mention a few preliminary remarks against the background of which the oral statements are to be considered. All persons to whom the oral statements are said to have been made by Manju when she visited Beed for the last time, are close relatives and friends of the deceased. In view of the close relationship and affection any person in the position of the witnesses would naturally have a tendency to exaggerate or add facts which may not have been stated to them at all. Not that this is done consciously but even unconsciously the love and affection for the deceased would create a psychological hatred against the supposed murderer and, therefore, the Court has to examine such evidence with very great care and caution. Even if the witnesses were speaking a part of the truth or perhaps the whole of it, they would be guided by a spirit of revenge or nemesis against the accused person and in this process certain facts which may not or could not have been stated may be imagined to have been stated unconsciously by the witnesses in order to see that the offender is punished. This is human psychology and no one can help it.” Let us examine the complaint. This is human psychology and no one can help it.” Let us examine the complaint. The father (PW-1) lodged the complaint. As per his complaint, he paid the cash as and by way of dowry as agreed between the parties at the time of marriage. He also stated that in view of the financial stringency he could not give gold ornaments in time that caused in displeasure to the in-laws. The in-laws inflicted physical and mental torture on the victim. Five months before the unfortunate incident PW-1 gave all the ornaments as agreed, even then the torture continued. While victim was in hospital she disclosed that for last three days she was not given any food, instead a container of poison was kept which prompted her to take the poison. At the time of trial he stated that a sum of rupees fifty thousand in cash and five tolas of gold ornaments were given at the time of marriage. Significantly enough, he did not disclose the amount of cash in the complaint. He admitted in the complaint that no gold ornament was given at the marriage because of financial stringency. He brought a new issue that as because his daughter gave birth to two female children successively she was subjected to torture. In cross-examination, he admitted that no “Lagnapatra” was prepared recording dowry. He admitted in cross-examination, that neither Madhabi nor he did lodge any complaint at any place against the in-laws prior to her death. In cross-examination, he stated that he did not state to the Investigating Officer that Madhabi had told him at the hospital that she had not been provided with food for last three days or that her in-laws had placed container of poison before her. PW-2 the brother-in-law stated that a sum of rupees fifty thousand had been paid as dowry but there had been no talk for giving gold ornaments. He also confirmed that no gold ornaments had been given at the time of marriage. These statements are totally contrary to the evidence of PW-1 as well as his complaint. He also stated that he had heard that Madhabi had been subjected to torture by her in-laws. He also confirmed that no written paper had been prepared for dowry at the time of marriage. These statements are totally contrary to the evidence of PW-1 as well as his complaint. He also stated that he had heard that Madhabi had been subjected to torture by her in-laws. He also confirmed that no written paper had been prepared for dowry at the time of marriage. He stated that PW-1 had collected money by selling his cultivable land, however no document to the said effect was given to the Police. He also did not state to the Police about torture on Madhabi by her-in-laws. He visited Madhabi’s in-law’s place only twice. He was not sure whether he had told the Police about the cash dowry. According to PW-3, it was agreed that a sum of rupees fifty thousand in cash along with five tolas of gold ornaments would be given in marriage. However, they could not give the ornaments at the time of marriage. Hence, Madhabi was subjected to torture by her in-laws. He also confirmed that birth of two successive female child was one of the causes. He brought out another cause of torture. According to him, Madhabi was not having fair complexion which was also a cause of torture. PW-7 and 8 were the Priest and Barber respectively. Their evidence about torture was based on hearsay. If we make a comparative study of the evidence of PW-1, 2 and 3 we find improvement in phases. PW-1 in his complaint stated about Rupees fifty thousand and five tolas of gold whereas PW-2 based on hearsay confirmed payment of rupees fifty thousand only, so was PW-3. The issue of female child and dark complexion were also brought in phases. The first one was brought by PW-2 whereas the second one was brought by PW-3, for the first time. They were however consistent on the issue of torture. They were also consistent on the issue of cash payment. They however could not produce any document to support payment of cash which was a substantial amount PW-2 stated that money was paid by selling the cultivable land. If it was so, the particulars of sale could have been submitted to inspire confidence in Court. If was not done. All the villagers being PW-5, 6 and 7 were declared hostile. Madhabi was alive for a day. She was treated at a Government Hospital. The doctor, who treated her, was not examined. If it was so, the particulars of sale could have been submitted to inspire confidence in Court. If was not done. All the villagers being PW-5, 6 and 7 were declared hostile. Madhabi was alive for a day. She was treated at a Government Hospital. The doctor, who treated her, was not examined. The Post Mortem Report was also not clear whether the death was homicidal, suicidal or accidental in absence of F.S.L. Report that did not see the light of the day. Considering the anomalies, the learned Additional Session Judge observed that the evidence was not enough to prove the case of prosecution. Sitting in revisional jurisdiction, I find neither any inherent error nor any patent illegality for which I can interfere with the said decision. The learned trial Judge apprised the evidence. I am not the Court of appeal. Hence, I am not competent to re-apprise the evidence and come to a different conclusion. My limited scope does not permit interference in the facts and circumstances as discussed above. The application fails and his hereby dismissed. Urgent Xerox certified copy will be given to the parties, if applied for.