In a criminal trial, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Where the evidence is inconsistent, unreliable, and lacks convincing proof, the court may acquit the accused even if the prosecution has not examined all potential witnesses.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against an order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge 8th Court, Alipore, 24 Parganas S. T. 4 (6) 87 by S. C. 22 (4/87) dt. 4-5-89 Under S. 306/489a I. P. C.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case in brief is thus :-MAMATA Dutta the youngest daughter of the revision petitioner developed premarital relation with the respondent Khokan which culminated into a lawful marriage without the consent of the revision petitioner and his other family members. Out of the wedlock one female and one male child were born. On 24-5-86, unfortunately, Mamata met an unnatural death at her Matrimonial Home, 25 Case East Road within Maniktala Police Station. Mamata, of and on, used to complain that her husband and in-laws asked her to get more dowry from her parents. The petitioner willy-nilly paid Rs. 1300/- to 1400/- to his daughter for giving the same to Khakon. On 25th May, 86 between 10-30 and 11 A. M. Khakon's mother Chaya Dutta went to the residence of the petitioner and informed him that his daughter Mamata committed suicide by hanging herself in the previous evening.

( 3 ) THE revision petitioner went to Maniktala Police Station on 26-5-86 and submitted a written complaint at 18-05 hours, vide Ext. 2, which was treated as F. I. R. , stating that these respondents had abetted Mamata for the commission of suicide as a result of which she put an end of her life, which was registered under S. 306 I. P. C. and investigation immediately followed. During investigation, the respondents were arrested, the witnesses were examined and after conclusion of the investigation charge-sheets had been submitted against the respondents.

( 4 ) P. W. 22, Joydeb Ghosh, who first noticed that a dead body hanging in the house of Khakon, immediately informed the police at 19-50 hours in Maniktala Police Station vide G. D. entry no. 2125 marked Ext. 612.

( 5 ) P. W. 25, the investigating officer, informed Joydeb to make an enquiry relating to the death of Mamata. During enquiry, the hanging materials were seized and dead body of Mamata was sent to N. R. S. Morgue for obtaining post-mortem report, before sending the dead body for necroscopic examination P. W. 25 held inquest over the dead body on 24-5-86.

( 6 ) THE prosecution had examined 25 witnesses to bring home the charge to the accused persons who faced the trial under S. 306 and 498a I. P. C.

( 7 ) THE learned trial Judge after brief resume of the evidence recorded an order of acquittal of the respondents. Although, the State did not challenge the order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court, the revision petitioner being aggrieved by such order has preferred this revision.

( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Arun Prakesh Chatterjee, has advanced in course of hearing these following submissions : (I) That the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses who according to him unequivocally narrated the relentless torture and humiliation on deceased Mamata for obtaining further dowry. (ii) He further stated that the learned Trial Court had significantly failed to examine the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination even though the prosecution omitted to examine him. (iii) There are sufficient evidence to establish that it was a homicidal death and the respondent were responsible for the same, the Trial Court had however, avoided to consider the same and passed an order of acquittal. He finally submitted that since there were glaring infirmaties in the Trial Court judgment relating to the improper appreciation of the evidence which resulted in miscarriage of justice. These above contentions, it accepted, are sufficient to set aside the order of acquittal and it would be justified to send the case back to the trial court for holding a fresh trial.

( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Dilip Dutta, while supporting the judgment of the trial Court sent a seperate written submi