- (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) This revision application has been-filed by the informant against the judgment of acquittal dated 28th August, 2007, passed by the Sessions Judge. Giridih, in Sessions Trial No. 387/2005, whereby and whereunder the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused persons from the charges under Sections 498-A/34, IPC and 304-B/34.
(3.) After going through the impugned judgment, we find that the learned trial Court misdirected itself in holding that the injuries found on the persons of the deceased were not ante-mortem. This finding of the trial Court is perverse being apparently against the materials on record. The reasons assigned by the trial Court in this regard are also erroneous. From the impugned judgment we also find that at one hand the learned trial Court has itself held that the prosecution has established that the deceased died within seven years of marriage but on the other hand has failed to consider the applicability of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act which raises presumption against the accused persons for causing dowry death if the conditions mentioned In Section 113-B of the Evidence Act are fulfilled. Therefore, in this view of the matter, we are of the view that the trial Court has not applied his judicial mind and without proper consideration of the evidence and materials on record has passed the impugned judgment of acquittal.;