Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 955 (PAT)

Taruna Mishra v. State Of Bihar

2000-08-04

D.N.PRASAD

body2000
Judgment D.N.Prasad, J. 1. This Criminal Revision application has been filed under Secs. 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of acquittal dated 9.7.1996 passed by S.D.J.M., Jamshedpur in G.R. No. 51 of 1992/T.R. No. 196 of 1994 by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the opposite party Nos. 2 to 6. 2. Short facts relating to the prosecution case is that the petitioner Taruna Mishra was married with the opposite party No. 2, Biriay Kumar Mishra and the marriage was solemnised on 3.6.1991 in accordance with Hindu rights. After the marriage the informant/petitioner went to her Sasural and after some time on 9.11.1991 the opposite party No. 2, Binay Kumar Mishra, C.K. Jha and Sanjeeb Jha told her to bring a sum of Rs. 1,00,000.00 from her parents, if at all she wants to reside in this, house. It is further alleged that they took the petitioner to her Nanihar and left her there. The petitioner had arranged for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000.00 and for that her parents prepared a Bank Draft and the same was. given to the opposite parties. After given this amount she Was kept for some time in the house but again she was being ill-treated and tortured and she also came to know that the opposite party No. 2 was married previously and he had already two children living at that time out of the wedlock of her husband and his first wife. The petitioner lodged the first information report at the police station when she came to know about this matter and the police investigated into the case and submitted charge-sheet under Secs. 498A/420 of the Indian Penal Code and Secs. 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Charges were also framed against the accused persons arid thereafter witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and defence but the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused persons/opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 by the impugned judgment against which this revision lies. 3. 498A/420 of the Indian Penal Code and Secs. 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Charges were also framed against the accused persons arid thereafter witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and defence but the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused persons/opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 by the impugned judgment against which this revision lies. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate acquitted the opposite parties/accused persons without appreciating the evidence on record properly as even though it is an admitted case that the marriage has taken place and the opposite party No. 2 was married from before and at that time he had already got two children out of the said wedlock but even then the marriage of the petitioner with opposite party No. 2 was solemnised by opposite party No. 2 knowingly. It is further argued that there was a demand of Rs, 1,00,000.00 which was also paid and later on the petitioner came to know about first marriage of opposite party No. 2 and as such the opposite party No. 2 cheated the petitioner on false pretext. It is also submitted that the learned Magistrate relied upon the defence Witnesses who are own relatives of the accused persons. 4. None appeared on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 accused persons. 5. Charge under Secs. 419/34, 420/498A, IPC and Secs. 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was framed against all the accused persons including the husband, namely, Binay Kumar Mishra. It is also evident that sanction for lounching prosecution against the accused persons as required under Secs. 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was also accorded by the District Magistrate, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur vide Ext. 1. 6. As many as six witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution in support of this case. All the witnesses including the father, mother of the victim girl namely Taruna Mishra are consistent in deposing that the accused Binay Kumar Mishra solemnised marriage with Taruna Mishra according to Hindu rites. The father of the victim Taruna Mishra (PW 5) also deposed to have paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000.00 to Binay Kumar Mishra through cheque which was withdrawn from United Bank of India, Sakchi Branch and this fact has also been admitted by Binay Kumar Mishra in his letter Ext. 2. The father of the victim Taruna Mishra (PW 5) also deposed to have paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000.00 to Binay Kumar Mishra through cheque which was withdrawn from United Bank of India, Sakchi Branch and this fact has also been admitted by Binay Kumar Mishra in his letter Ext. 2. The victim Taruna Mishra also deposed in her evidence that the accused Binay Kumar Mishra solemnised marriage with her and she lived with her husband Binay Kumar Mishra till 9th November as the marriage took place on 3.6.1991 according to Hindu rites. 7. From the evidence collected in the Court below, it was detected at later stage that Binay Kumar Mishra had already performed marriage with another girl earlier and he had two children from the first wife. 8. Learned Magistrate acquitted the accused persons by his judgment impugned only on the ground that Binay Kumar Mishra was forced to solemnise the marriage with Taruna Mishra but there is no evidence collected to this effect that the said marriage with Taruna Mishra solemnised under force. The letter Ext. 2 indicates clearly that Binay Kumar Mishra had taken a sum of Rs. 1,00,000.00 from the father of the victim Taruna Mishra and there is no denial that Binay Kumar Mishra did not solemnise marriage with Taruna Mishra. Marriage of Taruna Mishra with Binay Kumar Mishra is admitted position but the learned Magistrate committed error in holding that the said marriage was performed under force. Moreover, there is no specific and cogent evidence from the side of the accused persons on this score. 9. It is true that this Court does not ordinarily interfere with the judgment of acquittal and enterference with the judgment of acquittal is limited to the exceptional cases but in the instant case, apparently the order of acquittal is suffering from glaring illegality causing miscarriage of justice. The accused persons including the main accused Binay Kumar Mishra were also charged under Sections 419/420 of the Indian Penal Code and there is also allegation that Binay Kumar Mishra had received a sum of Rs. 1,00,000.00 by cheque on account of performing marriage with Taruna Mishra by duping the victim girl and her parrents about first marriage. The learned Magistrate has not considered and assessed the entire evidence on record in proper way and has committed gross error in acquitting the accused persons without valid ground. 1,00,000.00 by cheque on account of performing marriage with Taruna Mishra by duping the victim girl and her parrents about first marriage. The learned Magistrate has not considered and assessed the entire evidence on record in proper way and has committed gross error in acquitting the accused persons without valid ground. Thus, in my view, this is a fit case for remitting back to the Court concerned for re-trial according to law. 10. In the result, I find merit in the revision application which is accordingly allowed. Let this case be remitted back to the Court concerned for re-trial according to law and decide the same after hearing both sides. 11. However the Trial Court will decide the case on its own merit according to law without being influenced by any observation made in this order.