IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.72 of 2010 GANESH PRASAD Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 5. 01.03.2011. The period of limitation intervening the filing of the appeal is hereby condoned. Heard the counsel for the appellant who is a complainant of complaint case bearing no.1198 of 2003 on account of the enquiry held on that complaint petition which alleges ill-treatment to the lady deceased, namely, Ruby @ Baby for not bringing dowry of Rs.50,000/- as also a motorcycle. She was ultimately done to death. The defence was that the lady had died of jaundice. The complainant has stated that he had gone after receiving the information about the death of Ruby @ Baby to the place of occurrence with one Garib Das. The learned trial Judge has drawn an adverse inference on account of the non-examination of the said Garib Das who could have stated some facts on the occurrence. The other fact which appears weighing with the learned trial Judge was that if the relationship between the respondent Rajesh Thatheri @ Rajesh 2 Prasad Thatheri, who was the husband of the deceased, was really bad then she ought not have filed title suit against her brothers, i.e., the complainant for partition of the ancestral properties prior of her demise. This fact was admitted by P.W.3 in paragraph- 8 of his cross-examination. It is true that the deceased had died within seven days of the filing of the title suit and also that she was dying within the statutory period of seven years as set down by Section 304B of the IPC, but in absence of the evidence of the nature as is required for the proof of the charges as also in view of the evidence which could indicate that the relationship between the complainant and the deceased was not strained, this court does not find any fault with the order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge. The judgement does not appear suffering from perversity. The appeal appears meritless and the same is dismissed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha,J.)