It is the duty of the prosecutor to examine all the material witnesses and place on record all the material documentary evidence. It is also the duty of the trial judge to summon and examine all the material witnesses, even if the prosecution fails to do so.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision against the judgment and order dated 21-7-1990 passed by Sri Akoluddin Khan, the then IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Ballia, in S. T. No. 35 of 1990, State v. Amer Nath and another, whereby he acquitted the accused-opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 Amar Nath and Smt. Lalita Devi of the offences under Sections 304-B/34, 498-A/34 and 201/34, I. P. C. and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

( 2 ) SRI S. D. N. Singh has appeared as counsel for the revisionist, Sri K. S. Kushwaha has appeared for the accused-opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 Amar Nath and Smt. Lalita Devi and the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has appeared for the State.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that in this case gross miscarriage of justice has taken place on account of the omission of the prosecutor (A. P. P.) to examine the material witnesses and to prove the material documentary evidence and equally gross failure on the part of the trial Judge to summon and examine those witnesses at the trial. He has further argued that it was a case of dowry death and even of murder pure and simple, as the deceased has been strangulated to death by her husband Amar Nath and her mother-in-law Smt. Lalita Devi accused-opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3.

( 4 ) THE learned Addl. Government Advocate has supported the submissions of the learned counsel for the revisionist.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 (accused persons) has contested the revision and argued that the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial contained no material that could justify the conviction of the accused-persons (opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3) and consequently the order of acquittal was fully justified.

( 6 ) I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record of this case including the case diary which was available with the record of the trial Court. There cannot be any doubt that there has been gross miscarriage of justice in this case and consequently this Court has no other option than to set aside the acquittal of the accused-opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3. 6a. Govind Ram revisionist, the father of the deceased, was resident of Kadam Chauraha (Bhrigu Ashram), police station Kotwali, district Ballia while the accused (opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3) Amar Nath and Smt. Lalita Devi are residents of village Garhwar, Police Station Garhwar, District Ballia. The marriage of the deceased Smt. Geeta Devi admittedly took place with Amar Nath, opposite party No. 2. According to the revisionist, the marriage took place on 6-2-88. On 3-6-88 the Village Chowkidar Hira Nath lodged F. I. R. at the police station at 2 P. M. about death of the deceased alleging that villagers say she has been killed and burnt. A case was registered under Sections 306/498, I. P. C. against the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3. The post mortem report, the genuineness of which was admitted by the learned counsel for the accused-opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 before the trial Court, indicated prima facie that it was a case of death due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and not of suicide. During the investigation various witnesses were interrogated by the Investigation Officer and in the charge sheet submitted by him before the committing magistrate Govind Ram revisionist, father of the deceased was cited as a witness at serial No. 7, the wife of Govind Ram Smt. Bhagmani Devi was cited as a witness at serial No. 20, two sons of Govind Ram, namely Narain Gupta and Rajendra Gupta, were cited as witnesses at serial Nos. 23 and 24 and Smt. Pushpa Devi, w/o Narain, S/o Govind Ram, was cited as a witness at serial No. 31 in the charge sheet. The name of Km. Ranu, D/o Purshottam Gupta of the village Kadam Chauraha, was also cited as a witness on the back of the charge-sheet.

( 7 ) AT the trial the prosecution examined Deena Nath (PW 1) (Chowkidar of the village), Om Prakash (PW 2) (r/o village