VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD,J. - - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 6.10.2001 passed in S.T. No. 42 of 2001 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro at Tenughat, by which the petition for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was disallowed.
(2.) THE mail' contention of the learned counsel for revisionist is that there is a statement in the case diary vide Annexure 2 that before her death, the deceased had made a statement which was recorded by the ASI that she had got burn injury due to catching of the fire from stove and she had not suspected anybody for this. Learned counsel for the defence as relied upon Annexure 5 which is the statement of the Doctor who was allegedly present in the hospital and was present at the time of the recording of the said statement by the police. On perusal of the impugned order it transpires that the case was lodged under Section 498 -A/304 -B/34 of the IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the revisionist has accepted that there was a letter sent by the deceased to her parents in which certain allegations were made with regard to the demand of dowry but that letter has not been produced by him. The death has occurred within four years of the marriage so the presumption of death in the aforesaid circumstances, under Section 113 -B of the Evidence Act lies against the petitioner. Consequently, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed.;