The court criticized the trial court's handling of witness credibility in dowry death cases, emphasizing the need for cautious evaluation in such sensitive matters.

1. Criminal Revision No. 119 of 2005 and M.Cr.C. No. 2051 of 2005 filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 31-1-2005 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund in S.T. No. 321 of 2003 are being disposed of by this common order.

2. By filing criminal revision under S.397/401 of the C?. P.C., the applicant has challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment of acquittal of respondent Nos. 2, 4 and deceased respondent No. 3 and by filing M.Cr.C. No. 2051 of 2005, petitioner / Investigating Officer of the case has prayed for expungement of the remarks passed by the trial Court in para 38 of the judgment impugned.

3. As per case of the prosecution, deceased Meena Chaudhari wife of respondent No. 2 Girish Kumar Chaudhari died within seven years of her marriage in abnormal circumstances by burn injuries in the house of respondent Nos. 2 and 4 on 25-2-2003, merg was recorded vide Ex. P / 8. After summoning the witnessee vide Ex. P/l, inquest over the dead body of deceased was prepared vide Ex.P / 2, photos of the deceased were taken, dead body of deceased was sent for autopsy to community health centre, Saraipali, vide Ex.P.3 where PW / 6 Dr. N. S. Sahu, conducted autopsy vide Ex. P / 6 and found burn injuries over the body of deceased and opined that death was as a result of bum injuries. Finally first information report was recorded vide Ex. P / 14.

4. Statements of witnesses were recorded under S.161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code"). After completion of investigation, charge - sheet was filed against the respondent Nos. 2, 4 and deceased respondent No. 3 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saraipaji for the offence punishable under S.304 - B and 34 of the IPC. After hearing the parties, the trial Court has framed charges of the offence punishable under S.304 - B of the Code. After trial, the Court below has acquitted the respondent Nos. 2, 4 and deceased respondent No. 3 and while acquitting the respondents the trial Court has passed the following stricture against the Investigating Officer Goverdhan Singh Thakur in para 38 of the impugned judgment which reads as under:
(Editors Note: - Vernacular matter omitted.)

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment impugned.

6. Shri M. K. Bhaduri, learned counsel for the applicant in Criminal revision vehemently argues that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution was sufficient for drawing inference that respondent Nos. 2, 4 and deceased respondent No. 3 have committed dowry death. The evidence of relatives of the deceased P.W. 8 Lalit Kumar, P.W. 9 Champa Bai, mother of deceased and PW 10 Seth Kumar are sufficient for drawing inference that deceased Meena Choudhari has been subjected to torture and cruelty in connection with demand of dowry by respondent Nos. 2, 4 and deceased respondent No. 3 soon before her death and she died within seven years of her marriage in the house of respondent Nos. 2, 4 and deceased respondent No. 3 in abnormal circumstances as a result of burn injuries. The Court below ought to have convicted the respondent Nos. 2 and 4 and deceased respondent No. 3 under S.304 - B of the IPC. He further submits that the Investigating Officer has not investigated the offence properly, therefore, the trial Court has rightly passed the remarks against him.

7. On the other hand, Shri Vinod Tekam, learned Panel Lawyer for the State submits that the Court below has rightly passed the judgment.

8. Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the responde