JUDGMENT 1. - The revisional jurisdiction of this Court has been sought to be invoked to set at naught the judgment and order dated 19.10.2000 passed by the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities) Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 14/1989 (77/97) thereby acquitting the respondent No. 2 of the charges for offences under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the l.P.C."). 2. The prosecution case is traceable to a written report (Ex.P-2) lodged at about 5.00 P.M. on 5.9.1986 by Sitaram, the father of the deceased Smt. Kanta stating that his daughter had been given in marriage to Pawan Kumar S/o Munshiram Agarwal on 20.5.1986, where after she was subjected to harassment and ill treatment on demands of dowry. It was disclosed that on 4.9.1986 at about 6.30 P.M. having received a telephonic information from Raisinghnagar, the place of her matrimonial home, that she had died of burn injuries, he along with others rushed there and on seeing her dead daughter, entertained an impression that she had been murdered. The information was thus lodged with the SHO, Police Station Raisinghnagar. On this a police case was registered under Section 306 l.P.C. and on the completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the respondent No. 2, the mother-in-law of the deceased. Eventually, charges were framed against her under Sections 306 and 498-A l.P.C., to which she pleaded "not guilty" and was made to stand trial. The prosecution at the trial examined 14 witnesses including the parents of the deceased, a few relations of her, the doctor, who had performed the postmortem examination on her as well as the Investigating Officer. The respondent No. 2 in course of her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. abided by her denial of the charges. She examined 4 witnesses in defence as well. At the conclusion of the trial and on a consideration of the materials on record, the learned Trial Court, however, by the judgment and order impugned acquitted the respondent No. 2 of the charges. 3. Before adverting to the rival arguments, it would be appropriate at the threshold to notice the grounds on which the order of acquittal had been recorded. 3. Before adverting to the rival arguments, it would be appropriate at the threshold to notice the grounds on which the order of acquittal had been recorded. As would be apparent from the impugned judgment and order, the learned Trial Court did elaborately analyse the evidence on record and on the evaluation thereof concluded as hereunder (1) The prosecution witnesses PW-2 Sitaram, father of the deceased, PW-7 Geeta Devi, mother of the deceased, PW-6 Madan Lal and PW-8 Rajendra, brothers of the deceased, PW-3 Om Prakash, uncle of the deceased, PW-4 Indra Devi, aunt of the deceased have in their testimony at the trial substantially departed from their statements made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in course of the investigation thereby improving their version in support of the charge on the aspects of alleged demands of dowry and harassment to the deceased stemming therefrom, so much so that their evidence in Court was as a result of after thought and mutual deliberations. That these witnesses in course of the investigation did not implicate the Respondent No. 2, mother-in-law of the deceased, Ramvilas, brother-in-law of the deceased and Meera, sister-in-law of the deceased in alleged demands of dowry, was also noticed. These witnesses, however, involved the respondent No. 2, Ramvilas and Meera in their deposition at the trial.' The learned Trial Court construed these to be significant improvements deliberately introduced later in point of time rendering the witnesses untrustworthy. (2) There had been a substantial identicalness in the nature of improvement in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses at the trial on same aspects, thus rendering their testimony akin to parrot like narration. (3) Though PW-2 Sitaram had stated that on receiving the intimation of the death of his daughter in the evening of 4.9.1986, he along with others had proceeded towards Raisinghnagar and having reached there at about 2.30 A.M., lodged the written report quickly thereafter, the F.I.R. on i record was shown to have been laid on 5.9.1986 at 5.00 P.M. Thus, this information was delayed of about 14-15 hours for which there was no convincing explanation forthcoming. The F.I.R. also did not disclose the I identity of the persons making the alleged demands of dowry. The F.I.R. also did not disclose the I identity of the persons making the alleged demands of dowry. (4) Though these witnesses referred to some extra-judicial confession on I the part of the respondent No. 2, the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of I the deceased, in their testimony at the trial, there was no reference j thereof in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. thus rendering the same doubtful. (5) In the letters Ex.D-6, D-7, D-8 and D-9 written by the deceased (who was an educated lady) to her husband did not contain even a whisper of dowry demands and harassment by the respondent No. 2 and her i brother-in-law and sister-in-law in connection therewith. On the other hand, these letters demonstrated that she was happy and contented in her matrimonial home and she shared a pleasant relationship with her in laws. (6) The defence has proved and exhibited a document Ex.D-5 written by Surendra Kumar, Senior Advocate of Raisinghnagar containing the statement of Sitaram, father of the deceased, that he did not suspect any foul play in the death of his daughter. That this document was proved by J Surendra Singh as DW-3, was noted. 4. On the basis of the above observations, the learned Trial Court concluded that the charges of harassment to the deceased on dowry demands and abetment inducing the deceased to commit suicide had not been proved and thus, on that consideration, acquitted the respondent No. 2. 5. Mr. Jain has argued that deviation of the prosecution witnesses from their statements in course of the investigation being not decisively material, the learned Trial Court erred in law in discrediting them wholly on this ground. He contended that as admittedly the death of the deceased had been unnatural and had occurred within the period envisaged under Section 498-A l.P.C., the learned Trial Court ought to have analyzed the evidence of the witnesses at the trial in the true perspectives and it having failed to do so, the impugned judgment and order stands vitiated thereby. It being expected of a devoted wife in the Indian society to be restrained and contained in her expression vis-a-vis the relationship with her in-laws in particular, the learned Trial Court ought not to have deduced from her letters to her husband that the charge on demands of dowry and ill-treatment meted out to her was not well founded, he urged. Mr. Mr. Jain insisted that Ex.D-5 being a document produced on behalf of the defence, the learned Trial Court ought not to have acted thereon, more particularly as the PW-2 Sitram had denied his signature in it. As the order of acquittal is an yield of total non-consideration of the evidence on record, Mr. Jain argued that having regard to the gravity of the offences, the impugned judgment and order needs to be reversed in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, Mr. Garg has argued that the prosecution case has been rightly rejected by the learned Trial Court on examination of all relevant aspects and thus, in view of the constricted scope of legal scrutiny, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction no interference therewith ought to be made. Apart from highlighting the delay in filing of the written report with the police, the learned Counsel has urged that in the face of Ex.D-5, it was clearly an afterthought to harass and intimidate the respondent No. 2. Contending that the falsity of charges is apparent from the omission of the allegations of dowry demands and harassment in the statements of the prosecution witnesses in course of the investigation, the learned Counsel has argued that the learned Trial Court was justified in rejecting their testimony in Court, which showed marked embellishments as apparent afterthought. Mr. Garg submitted that not only no evidence whatsoever of harassment on dowry demands or abetment exists on record, the letters written by the deceased to her husband wholly belied the charges. He has urged also that the respondent No. 2 is presently 75 years of age and with the time lag in between, no interference on this count as well is warranted. 7. Before evaluating the rival arguments, it would be appropriate to have a bird's eye view of the evidence on record to the extent necessary. 8. PW-2 Sitaram, PW-3 Om Prakash, PW-4 Indra Devi, PW-6 Madan Lal, PW-7 Geeta Devi and PW-8 Rajendra are the relatives of the deceased, in particular PW-2 Sitaram and PW-7 Geeta Devi are her parents. On a perusal of their testimony in Court, it is apparent that there is a striking similarity in their versions. 8. PW-2 Sitaram, PW-3 Om Prakash, PW-4 Indra Devi, PW-6 Madan Lal, PW-7 Geeta Devi and PW-8 Rajendra are the relatives of the deceased, in particular PW-2 Sitaram and PW-7 Geeta Devi are her parents. On a perusal of their testimony in Court, it is apparent that there is a striking similarity in their versions. Though in course of their examination-in-chief they had stated about demands of dowry made by the respondent No. 2-mother-in-law of the deceased and Ramvilas and Meera, her brother and sister in-law, when they were confronted with their statements made before the police (which were eventually proved through the Investigating Officer), they admitted to have ' omitted to mention about the same. The conclusion of the learned Trial Court in this regard as noticed here-in-above bearing on the credibility of these witnesses having regard to significance of such omissions amounting to contradictions thus cannot be lightly disregarded. Whereas there is no element of doubt that Smt. Kanta had died an unnatural death out of burn injuries as is evidenced by the statement of Dr. Mahaveer Prasad Agarwal, who had performed postmortem ; examination on her, the fact that charge-sheet was laid only against her mother-in-law though allegations of dowry demands had also been levelled against her brother and sister in-law, is also an aspect which cannot be overlooked. Noticeably, though the prosecution has claimed that the written report had been lodged by Sitaram in the wee hours of 5.9.1986, the records disclose that the 1 same appeared to have been filed at 5.00 P.M. on that day. No explanation whatsoever for the time lag was forthcoming. The evidence of DW-2 Surendra Kumar, Senior Advocate is to the effect that on 5.9.1986 in the morning he along-with others had assembled in the house of Munshiram, father-in-law of the deceased, where Sitaram was also present. He mentioned further that by that time the police had also arrived. The witness stated that he enquired from Sitaram as to whether he wanted police action in the episode, to which latter replied that he had no suspicion about the death of his daughter and that he did not intend any such action. On this, the witness further stated that in such a case he (Sitaram) ought to make a statement to this effect before the police or give it in writing. On this, the witness further stated that in such a case he (Sitaram) ought to make a statement to this effect before the police or give it in writing. The witness claimed that he thereafter drew up the document (Ex.D 5) as dictated by Sitraram and his son, where after he (Sitaram) signed the same in his presence. The witness asserted on oath that this document had been written by him and the same was handed over to the SHO, Police Station Raisinghnagar. He mentioned further that F.I.R. (Ex.P-2) was lodged later in the evening of the day and thereafter, the document (Ex.D-5) was returned to him by the police, which he handed over to Kesri Chand. This witness could not be dislodged in cross-examination. In this view of the matter, the learned Trial Court cannot be said to have erred in acting on this document (Ex.D-5), more particularly in the face of the delay in the filing of the written report Ex.P-2. Incidentally, the letters Ex.D-6, D-7, D-8 and D-9 written by the deceased to her husband during the time when allegedly she had been persistently harassed and intimated with dowry demands, she did not make a mention thereof. In that view of the matter, in the overall perspective, the conclusion of the learned Trial Court that these disclosures as well had a militating impact on the charges cannot be repudiated to be absurd of illogical. 9. In the wake of the above, having regard to the limited scope of interference with an order of acquittal from a criminal charge, this Court is of the view that considering the materials on record, no interference with the impugned judgment and order is warranted. The view taken by the learned Trial Court on the basis of the evaluation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution cannot per se be denounced as implausible or suffering from any error on a fundamental principle of law.The revision petition is thus rejected.Revision dismissed. *******