Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 400 (MP)

Archana Sen v. Pappu @ Satish

2013-03-21

N.K.GUPTA

body2013
JUDGMENT : N.K. Gupta, J. Heard on admission. The respondent No. 1 to 3 were convicted for offences punishable u/s 498A of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced for 18 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500 and six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500 vide judgment dated 28.12.1998 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Sagar in Criminal Case No. 548/1991. In Criminal Appeal No. 7/1999 and 8/1999 the learned Sessions Judge, Sagar vide judgment dated 16.8.1999 accepted the appeal and acquitted the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 from the various charges of offence punishable u/s 498A of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Being aggrieved with the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court the applicant/complainant has preferred the present revision. The prosecution's case in short is that the applicant was married with the accused Satish Kumar. For some time she resided with her husband peacefully. Thereafter, she was harassed for dowry demand, etc. and she was beaten by all the accused persons. Thereafter, she delivered a female child. When the child was 1 ½ years of age the husband of the victim went to the house of her parents and the victim took a sum of Rs. 500 from her father and gave to her husband. Thereafter, the husband and other accused persons assaulted her because there was a demand of Rs. 5,000. Thereafter, she was taken back to the house of her father. On 28.2.1990 she delivered a female child. Thereafter, again the accused persons assaulted her. She complained about her headache then her husband administered some tablets with the advice of his brother-in-law. After taking such medicines so many black spots came on her body and she was admitted in the hospital for the treatment. Thereafter, she was sent to her parents house. Again when she was brought in the house of her husband she was kept hungry and she was sent to the house of her father with the demand of a VCP and colour T.V. It was also told to her that the delivery should be performed at her father's house. Thereafter, on 26.7.1991 when she was lying on her bed, her sister-in-law came and her husband pierced his hands in the uterus of the complainant. Her brother-in-law was standing at the door. Thereafter, on 26.7.1991 when she was lying on her bed, her sister-in-law came and her husband pierced his hands in the uterus of the complainant. Her brother-in-law was standing at the door. Thereafter, she was taken to the hospital and when she became conscious, she found that all the relatives of her husband ran away from the hospital. The applicant has submitted a written report to the S.P. Sagar on 8.8.1991 and thereafter, a case was registered. After due investigation a charge-sheet was filed. 2. After considering the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the learned Sessions Judge has appreciated the evidence in a detailed manner. He created five parts of the various incidents and discussed for each part and he found the testimony of the complainant was not believable. She did not give any specific date when she was sent to her father's house or she was admitted in the hospital when her husband put his hands inside her uterus. It was mentioned by the learned Sessions Judge that no such complaint was made by the complainant to the treating doctor and in her case diary statement she has accepted that her husband and all the accused persons were present in the hospital and thereafter the learned Sessions Judge found that the allegations of mishandling of uterus was incorrect. 3. The complainant gave a contradictory statement relating to the various facts. Sometimes she was telling that she was sent to her parents house for demand of some amount and colour T.V. etc. whereas some time she had told that she was not sent to her parents house because of that demand. She did not give any exact date on which she was lastly sent to the parents house. However, according to her allegations, it appears that she delivered the second child on 28.2.1990 who could not survive and she accepted in her statement that she was residing with her father since last six years and therefore, it is apparent that she was residing with her father since the year 1990 whereas she had lodged an FIR on 8.8.1991. No reason has been shown as to why she had not lodged the FIR earlier to that period. When a mishandling to her uterus was caused and she aborted then it was for her to lodge an FIR immediately. No reason has been shown as to why she had not lodged the FIR earlier to that period. When a mishandling to her uterus was caused and she aborted then it was for her to lodge an FIR immediately. In the entire story she never lodged any FIR against the accused persons. No medical report is submitted to confirm the allegations made by the complainant. On the contrary if the statement of the complainant is perused then a lot of contradiction was recorded by the defence Counsel with her case diary statement Ex.D/3. 4. After considering the entire contradictions and different versions given by the complainant, it appears that the allegations of dowry demand and harassment of that basis were incorrect. The evidence of the complainant was not at all believable. The other witnesses who were the relatives of the complainant have stated in the tune of the complainant but it is apparent that they were concocted witnesses. Lot of contradiction was recorded in the statement of Santosh Kumar (P.W.1). He told a different story before the Police and a different story before the Court. Rajesh Kumar Saini (P.W.2) gave a different story before the Court which was not given in the case diary statement Ex. D/2. 5. The learned Sessions Judge, Sagar has considered the entire evidence and appreciated all the evidence in detail. Looking to that appreciation of evidence, the acquittal directed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sagar appears to be correct. There is no illegality or perversity visible in the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sagar. Consequently, the present revision application filed by the applicant/complainant cannot be accepted. Hence it is hereby dismissed at motion stage.