The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt, and in this case, the evidence did not establish the guilt of the accused persons.

JUDGMENT :

1. None responds for the revisionist even in the revised call and also none has appeared for the private opposite parties. Heard Sri Mithilesh Kumar, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. This revision has been preferred by the informant-revisionist against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 26.05.1998 recorded by learned 6th- Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut, in S.T. No.988 of 1996 (State Vs. Pankaj and others), under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Nauchandi, District Meerut.

3. In brief, facts of the case are that the informant namely K.K. Sharma moved a written complaint Ex.Ka-1 to lodged an F.I.R, reduced in writing on his dictation by P.W.-2, Sudhakar Aashawadi. Later on another written complaint Ex.Ka-2, was also moved by the informant K.K. Sharma to S.S.P, Meerut on 16.01.1996 stating therein that his daughter Dr. Rachna Sharma had died in Lokpriya Hospital. There was tussle between his daughter and her husband for six months. She has been killed by injecting any intoxicating substance to her. The information regarding torture was also given by his daughter in the night of 14.01.1996 at 09:00 P.M. and had informed that accused Pankaj Sharma may kill her any time.

4. On the basis of F.I.R, a case under Section 302 I.P.C. was lodged and chik F.I.R. Ex.Ka-3 was prepared. In the second F.I.R, the informant has stated that Rs.2,00,000/-was spent by him in the marriage of his daughter but neither the husband nor his parents were happy with the dowry. They all used to torture Smt. Rachana. In 1991, Pankaj Sharma had asked Rachna Sharma to bring Rs.1,00,000/-on which the informant had given fifty thousand rupees to them. In September, 1994, again the deceased was asked for money and when the informant expressed his inability to provide the same, his daughter was beaten and tortured. On 18.07.1995, accused Pankaj Sharma and his daughter had come to his house. They had bought a Maruti Car and had taken loan from City Bank, instalment of which was asked to be paid by the informant. When on 14.01.1996, the informant met to the parents of his daughter’s husband, he was asked to pay the loan otherwise to take his daughter back from there and that they would remarry Pankaj Sharma with another lady. The informant had come back after giving assurance but in the night several phone calls were made between him and the deceased. During the conversation the deceased had informed that after his departure, parents of her husband had beaten her badly and they wanted to make way for remarriage. On 15.01.1996 one Dr. P.K. Shukla had informed on phone that Dr. Rachna Sharma has been killed. At the time of death the deceased was pregnant for eight months.

5. On the basis of second application, the case was converted into Section 304B I.P.C. According to the prosecution, the deceased had died due to pavulon injection. The inquest was conducted same day by S.I. Prem Narayan Bohrey. It was signed by the informant, his wife Smt. Shakuntala Sharma and all the three accused persons. At that time no complaint was made and no F.I.R. had been lodged.

6. From the examination of viscera, pavulon was found. Three empty syringes, one empty injection and two needles were also taken into possession from the place of occurrence. After conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted under the aforesaid sections.

7. Following witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused persons.

8. In