Hon’ble Dinesh Gupta, J.—This revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 2.5.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. 1), Jaunpur in Sessions Trial No. 88 of 1997 (State v. Subhash and others) acquitting the accused opposite parties under Sections 498A, 304 B and 201 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that a First Information Report was lodged by complainant Paras Nath Yadav the revisionist on 1.3.1996 at Police Station Machhli Shahar, District-Jaunpur that the marriage of his daughter Pramila Devi aged 22 years was performed in May, 1990 and sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage. In April, 1993 his daughter went to her in law’s house and when she returned to her house she told the complainant and other family members that her husband and other in-laws have demanded motor cycle. The complainant tried to persuade the accused persons and sent his daughter to her in-law’s house. On 25.2.1996 one Awadhesh Yadav who is related to accused Subhash informed the complainant that his daughter had expired and when the complainant enquired he was informed by some neighbours that his daughter had expired after consuming some poisonous substance and she was cremated without any information to the complainant.

3. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against accused opposite parties No. 2 to 4 who were committed to the Court of Sessions to face trial under Sections 498A, 304 B and 201 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. After framing charges, the accused opposite parties were tried and the evidence was recorded. The son of the complainant was examined as P.W.1, complainant was examined as P.W.2, the Investigating Officer Hari Shankar Yadav was examined as P.W.3 and constable Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi was examined as P.W.4. In defence the accused persons examined Awadhesh Narayan Yadav as D.W.1 and Dr. Mansha Ram Singh, Medical Officer of Primary Health Centre, Baraipar, Machhli Shahar, District- Jaunpur was examined as D.W.2 and also produced the marriage card of the deceased and the papers relating to her treatment.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused persons from the charges levelled against them vide judgment and order dated 2.5.2003.

Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order, the complainant has preferred this revision.

At this stage, learned A.G.A. informed the Court that the State has not filed any appeal against the order of acquittal by the Sessions Judge. The office has also reported that no Government Appeal has been filed relating to the same case crime number.

5. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned counsel appearing for accused-opposite parties No. 2 to 4 as well as learned Additional Government Advocate.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the order dated 2.5.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge is wholly illegal and against the law and facts and is liable to be set aside. The learned trial Judge has mis-interpreted the evidence lead by prosecution and wrongly relied upon false and forged defence evidence.

Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the complainant was not informed by the accused persons regarding the death of his daughter and she was cremated in absence of the complainant or his family members which clearly shows mala fide intention of the accused persons and this fact was established by the prosecution that deceased was cremated without any information to the complainant. The prosecution has clearly established the demand of dowry by the accused persons and the deceased was subjected to cruelty relating to demand of dowry but the trial Court has illegally and arbitrarily passed the impugned judgment without considering this aspect of the matter.

6. Learned counsel for the accused opposite parties submitted that the prosecution and the complaina