Girish Chandra Gupta, J.

This appeal is directed against a judgment dated 28th February 2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 3rd Court, Sealdah, in Sessions Trial No. 2 (12) of 2005 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 5 (11) 2005 (State of West Bengal vs. Binod Kumar Shaw and two others) by which the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused persons of the offences punishable under Sections 304B/498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 thereof. The State has preferred this appeal. The facts and circumstances of the case briefly stated are that within four years of marriage Santra Shaw, aged about 23 years, mother of a male child aged less than two years, died and her dead body was recovered from a pond near her matrimonial home on 27th February 2004. A written complaint was lodged instantaneously at the place of occurrence alleging, inter alia, continuous torture, both physical and mental, by the husband and the parents-in-law, due to failure on the part of the party of the complainant to give them a jeep agreed to be given at the time of marriage. The case of defence is that the victim was a patient of paranoid schizophrenia and was prone to commit suicide.

2. Mr. Sanyal, learned Advocate appearing for the State took us through the evidence, both oral and documentary, and contended that the learned Trial Court ignored the relevant evidence; disbelieved the witnesses on trivial or no ground, demonstrated utter lack of judicial scrutiny into the evidence adduced by the parties; imputed motives to the witnesses, insincerity to the police and recorded the order of acquittal which no one properly instructed in law exercising power judicially would have done.

3. Mr. Biplab Mitra, learned Advocate appearing for the de facto complainant adopted the submissions of Mr. Sanyal and added that gross miscarriage of justice was occasioned by the impugned judgment and order.

4. Mr. Moitra, learned Advocate appearing for the accused/respondents disputed the submissions made by Mr. Sanyal and Mr. Mitra. According to him the learned trial Court, who had the benefit of watching the demeanour of the witnesses, after appreciating the evidence delivered a well reasoned judgment and this Court should refrain from interfering with the same. Mr. Moitra submitted that absolute assurance of the guilt of the accused is necessary before an order of acquittal can be interfered with. He in support of his submission relied upon the judgment in the case of Dhanna, etc. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1996) 10 SCC 79, wherein the following view was expressed:-

Though the Code does not make any distinction between an appeal from acquittal and an appeal from conviction so far as powers of the appellate court are concerned, certain unwritten rules of adjudication have consistently been followed by Judges while dealing with appeals against acquittal. No doubt, the High Court has full power to review the evidence and to arrive at its own independent conclusion whether the appeal is against conviction or acquittal. But while dealing with an appeal against acquittal the appellate court has to bear in mind: first, that there is a general presumption in favour of the innocence of the person accused in criminal cases and that presumption is only strengthened by the acquittal. The second is, every accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt regarding his guilt and when the trial court acquitted him, he would retain that benefit in the appellate court also. Thus, the appellate court in appeals against acquittals has to proceed more cautiously and only if there is absolute assurance of the guilt of the accused, upon the evidence on record, that the order of acquittal is liable to be interfered with or disturbed. (Durgacharan Naik v. State of Orissa, Caetano Piedade Fernandes v. Union Territory of Goa, Daman & Diu, Tota Singh v. State of Punjab, Awadhesh v. State of M.P. and Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan.)

5. Mr. Moi