2011 Supreme(All) 307

[2011(2) ADJ 41 (NOC)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : ASHOK SRIVASTAVA, J.
SHAKEEL AND OTHERS ....Revisionists
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER ....Opposite Parties
(Criminal Revision No. 1613 of 2003, decided on 2nd February, 2011)

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 227, 228 and 482—(Indian) Penal Code, 1860—Sections 498-A and 304-B—Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961—Section 3/4—Evidence Act, 1872—Sections 8 and 106—Framing of charge—Discharge—Application for—Rejection of—Purpose of Sections 227 and 228 is to ensure that accusation made against accused is not frivolous—Legislature used words "Not sufficient"—In catena of decisions Apex Court ruled that truth, veracity and effect of evidence cannot be judged at initial stage of trial—Post mortem and viscera reports are not substantive piece of evidence—They are only supportive evidence—In instant case conduct of revisionists is also relevant and admissible under Section 8 of Act—As it is evidence from statement of prosecution witnesses—When complainant and his family members reached nuptial home of deceased—They found that all revisionists and other family members had run away from their house—Nothing has been pleaded from side of revisionists that deceased was suffering from some heart disease—And as a consequence she had died—Deceased died at residence of revisionists—They are under an obligation under Section 106 of ACt to explain death of deceased—No illegality in impugned order.