A.M.Kapadia, J. - (1.) STATE has preferred leave to appeal application, whereby, the STATE has sought to challenge the judgment dated 24.3.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Balotra (Headquarters Banner) in Sessions Case No.71/ 08 (46/08), whereby, accused-respondents were acquitted from the charge for commission of offences under Sections 498 A, 304B/ alternatively 302, I.P.C. Another revision petition has been filed by the complainant against the same judgment. Hence, this common orders in both these cases.
(2.) IT is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant that the judgment impugned is totally erroneous and passed without application of mind. The prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for committing offences under Sections 498A and 304 Part- B, I.P.C. but the learned trial Court without appreciating the prosecution evidence acquitted the accused respondents from the charges levelled against them which is contrary to the basic principles of law. IT is argued that ample evidence was produced before the Court to prove the allegations of demand of dowry and, admittedly, deceased was married to accused Bhanwara Ram on 27.5.2007 and she died within seven years of marriage, therefore, upon this reason alone, presumption was to be drawn for convicting the accused-respondents for offences under Sections 304 Part- B and 498A, I.P.C. but the learned trial Court erroneously gave finding that there is 110 evidence on record to convict the accused-respondents for commission of the alleged offences. Learned counsel for the complainant invited our attention towards one of the facts that judgment was delivered by the trial Court on 24.3.2009 and FSL report was received after the judgment was rendered in the case and in the FSL report it was observed that poison was found in the stomach of the deceased but the said document was not on record on the date of the judgment, therefore, the judgment impugned may be quashed and case may be remitted to the trial Court for reconsidering the matter afresh while taking into consideration the FSL report which is said to be received after the judgment and was not brought to the notice of the trial Court when the judgment was delivered in the case. Learned counsel for the revisionist vehemently argued that the FSL report was to be considered at the time of deciding the case by the trial Court. We have considered the submissions made by learned public prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant and perused the judgment impugned along with application for leave to appeal and revision petition. After perusing the judgment, we are of the opinion that the learned trial Court after considering the entire material on record gave the finding that prosecution has failed to prove that soon before the death of the deceased, there was any demand of dowry, so also, no injury was found upon the body of deceased Kamla and cause of death was also not ascertained. In whole of the discussion, it has been categorically found by the learned trial Court that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt because no injury was found upon the body of the deceased. Further, the prosecution case with regard to demand of dowry soon before the occurrence has also not been proved by the prosecution, therefore, the finding arrived at by the learned trial Court does not require any interference. With regard to argument of learned counsel for the appellant -petitioner for remanding the case to the trial Court for reconsideration on the ground that FSL report was received after the judgment was delivered, we are of the opinion that at this stage after perusal of the FSL report, we do not find sufficient cause made out to remit the case for retrial because upon perusal of the FSL report also there is still doubt what was the cause of death. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the judgment impugned does not suffer from any perversity or illegality and the finding arrived at by the learned trial Court does not require any interference.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, both, criminal leave to appeal application as well as revision petition are hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.;