Variava, J. -- Leave granted.

Heard parties.

This appeal is against the judgment dated 5th July, 2000, by which the High Court has summarily dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant herein.

Briefly stated, the facts are as follows:

The appellant is the father of one Munki. The said Munki was married to the 2nd respondent. Of the said marriage, there is a girl child born to these two parties.

On 16th September, 1998, the appellant filed a first information report with the Mahatma Gandhi Police Chouki, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

The complaint was to the effect that the 2nd respondent used to beat his wife and harass her without any reasons. It was complained that even when the 2nd respondent had been told not to beat his wife or harass her, he refused to listen to reason. It was further complained that on 15th September, 1998, the appellant was informed that Munki was seriously ill and had been admitted to Jodhpur Hospital. It was stated that when the appellant went to the hospital, he found Munki in emergency ward. It was stated that Munki had informed the appellant that she had been beaten and administered a glass of pesticide by her husband, i.e., the 2nd respondent.

On the basis of the FIR, a complaint under sections 498A and 323 was registered. Subsequently, section 307 and 324 were also added. The 2nd respondent was then tried for the said offences. By order dated 27th March, 2000, the 2nd respondent was acquitted by the Second Additional District and Sessions Judge.

Against the order of acquittal, the appellant filed criminal revision petition, which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 5th July, 2000. Hence this appeal.

Even though the State had not filed an appeal against the order of acquittal dated 27th March, 2000 and has not filed any SLP before this Court, Mr. Ranji Thomas, who appears for the State of Rajasthan, informs us that he is supporting the appellant.

In support of its case, the prosecution had examined a number of witnesses. Among the witnesses that it had examined was one Dr. N.S.

Kothari, who was examined as Prosecution Witness No.9. He deposed that after Munki was admitted to the hospital, her gastric lavage and blood sample were preserved and sent for chemical examination. He deposed that the chemical examination disclosed that an insecticide poison, namely, organo-phosphorous, which was dangerous to life, was.

found present in gastric lavage and blood sample. He further deposed that if the treatment had not been given in time, Munki would have died.

The report had been marked as Exhibit P-8. The result of the report reads as follows:

"On chemical examination, portion of blood sample and gastric lavage gave positive test for the presence of organo-phosphorous insecticide.' , On the basis of this evidence, the Second Additional District and Sessions Judge concluded that poison dangerous to life was found in the body of Smt. Munki. Inspite of this finding, the 2nd respondent was acquitted. The reasoning of the Second Additional District and Sessions Judge for acquitting the 2nd respondent, are difficult to follow. Munki was supposed to have been taken to the hospital by her jeth. Munki had also deposed that when poison was administered to her, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law were also present. The Second Additional District and Sessions Judge has concluded that the jeth, the mother-in-law and sister-in-law should have been examined by the prosecution. The Jeth was not an eye-witness to the administration of poison. We fail to understand what evidence the jefh could have given except to say that he took Munki to the hospital. We also fail to understand how the Second Additional District and Sessions Judge expected prosecution to lead evidence of the 2nd respondent's mother and sister. We fail to understand how non-examination of these parties was fatal to the prosecution case. The Second Additional District and . Sessions Judge also hel