KHARAK SINGH Vs. KRISHAN PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 12/6/1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Meerut under Sec. 304B, 498A IPC and Sec. 3/4 of the DP Act.

(2.) The revisionist informant has taken ground that the judgment and order passed by the lower court is wholly illegal. The trial court has completely misread and misappreciated the evidence on record and recorded the finding of acquittal in favour of all the accused persons. The prosecution has proved this case beyond all reasonable doubts even then the trial court has acquitted the accused from all the charges on the basis of conjunctures and surmises. There is no delay in lodging the FIR and if there is any delay, the same has been explained by the complainant even though the trial court has acquitted all the accused persons holding that the FIR is an anti-timed document. The trial court has held without any material evidence that the FIR in question has been subsequently manipulated and changed. The finding given by the trial court in this respect is wholly illegal, perverse and is liable to be set aside.

(3.) It is well settled law that there is a presumption against the accused under Sec. 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with regard to the offence committed under Sec. 304B IPC. In the present case, even though the accused persons have failed to revert the presumption drawn against them under Sec. 113B of the Evidence Act, the trial court without any basis or material has recorded the finding of acquittal, which is wholly illegal and is liable to be set aside. The prosecution has completely proved the charges under Ss. 304B and 498A IPC by fulfilling all the ingredients of dowry death, even though the trial court has illegally recorded the finding of acquittal in favour of the accused persons.