S.P. Garg, J. - (1.)SMT . Ram Pati (the appellant) challenges a judgment dated 20.07.2012 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate by which the respondent Nos. 2 to 8 were acquitted of the charges under Section 498A /406 /34 IPC. I have heard the appellant's counsel and have examined the Trial Court record. Learned counsel urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence of PW -1 (Usha Rani) in true perspective. After recording her examination -in -chief partly on 03.07.2002 she expired on 24.06.2011 and it remained incomplete for various reasons. The Trial Court fell in grave error in not considering her deposition in the judicial proceedings prior to her death. Usha Rani was married to respondent No. 2 (Ranvir Singh) on 27.04.1994. On 31.10.1998, she lodged complaint against respondents No. 2 to 8 leading to registration of FIR under Section 498A /406 /34 IPC. On 03.07.2002, Usha Rani was examined as PW -1. On 24.06.2011, she expired. Apparently, examination -in -chief of the complainant - Usha Rani remained incomplete. She was summoned time and again on subsequent hearing to depose but she did not appear. On 24.01.2004, she left without Court's premises without examination. PW - Smt. Ram Pati (the present appellant) declined to give her statement that date. Last and final opportunity was granted to the prosecution. Finally, on 20.03.2004, the evidence of the prosecution was closed. On an application moved under Section 311 Cr. P.C., one last and final opportunity was granted with the condition that it would be subject to the availability of the witnesses and no exemption would be granted for examination of witnesses vide order dated 19.11.2004. Again, prosecution evidence was closed on 07.02.2005 and the case was adjourned for final arguments after recording 313 statements. Another application under Section 311 Cr. P.C. was moved which was dismissed by a detailed order dated 03.05.2006. In revision vide order dated 07.08.2006, one last and final opportunity was given to the complainant for her examination on 04.12.2006. The examination never happened and application was moved to summon the record given to the police in FIR No. 439/1997 under Section 406 /498A IPC PS Najafgarh. Attempts were made to summon the said record and ultimately, it transpired that the said record had already been destroyed and the FIR has been quashed by this Court. When the case was adjourned for recording statement of the prosecution witnesses, it was reported that the complainant had expired on 24.06.2011. The Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, acquitted the respondents in the absence of any evidence.
(2.)SINCE , the testimony of complainant - Usha Rani remained incomplete and the respondents did not get an opportunity to cross -examine her, her statement recorded partly could not have been taken for consideration to base conviction. The prosecution was given ample opportunities to examine her but she failed to appear without cogent reasons. Beside this, even the inconclusive statement of the complainant does not implicate the respondents for committing offence under Section 498A /406 IPC. The prosecution also did not examine the other relevant witnesses to prove the complainant's allegations. There was no worthwhile evidence on record to establish the guilt of the respondents. I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment. It is relevant to note that the State did not challenge the acquittal order. The present appeal has been filed by Smt. Ram Pati, complainant's mother, who was one of the witnesses but never examined herself during trial. The appeal is unmerited and is dismissed in limini. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith.