Court cannot disturb an order of acquittal unless the findings are shown to be totally against evidence and perverse. In the present case, the prosecution filed two documents i.e., Exs.P2 and P3 which are said to be agreements, one executed by the accused in favour of the deceased and the other executed by the deceased in favour of the accused each promising to lead compatible conjugal life. The trial Court found that after Ex.P3, dated 02.04.1998, the evidence would show that there was no dowry harassment. To support its conclusion in this behalf, it also relied upon the answers given by PW.1 i.e., the father of the deceased in his cross-examination. I have gone through the cross-examination of PW.1 and it clearly shows that PW.1, who is no other than the father of the deceased, clearly admitted that after the second panchayat, which is admittedly on the date of Ex.P3, there was no complaint of dowry harassment. Thus what should be noted is that the above second panchayat took place in April, 1998 and the death occurred on 23.01.2002 i.e., nearly 3 years later. In other words, the evidence would show that soon before the death there was no harassment and whatever harassment was there it occurred only 3 years before the death. The trial Court’s conclusion based on the above circumstances in the evidence cannot be said to be against the evidence and it cannot be said to be perverse.
