Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 310 (GAU)

MOUTUSHI SARKAR v. RAJIB SARKAR

2015-03-13

B.K.SHARMA

body2015
ORDER (ORAL) 1. This appeal is against the judgment of acquittal dated 25/10/2010 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sankardev Nagar, Hojai in CR Case No. 154/2007 in CR Case No. 154/2007, by which the accused respondents have been acquitted of the charge under Section 498-A IPC. 2. I have heard Mr. B. Malakar, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. C. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents. I have also heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned APP, Assam. I have also perused the entire materials on record. 3. On receipt of the complaint petition, CR Case No. 154/2007 was registered under Section 498(A)/34 IPC against he accused persons. Upon examination of the complainant and one Court witness, cognizance of the offence under Section 498(A) IPC was taken and the accused persons were called upon to answer the charge. After framing of the charge under Section 498-A IPC, the same was read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. During trial, the complainant examined 3 (three) witnesses (PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3). On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court framed the following point for determination having answered the same by dismissing the complaint and acquitting the accused persons from the charge, the complainant has preferred this appeal. “POINTS FOR DETERMINATION : To ascertain the guilt of the accused on the charge levelled against him, the following point is sorted out for decision in the present case : (i) Whether on 26/6/06 and on 4//2/07 at about NIL the accused being the husband of the complainant subjected the complainant to physical and mental torture for non fulfillment of his unlawful demand of cash amount ?” 5. On 27/03/2007, the complainant i.e. the PW-1 lodged a complaint with the learned SDJM, Sankardev Nagar, Hojai, stating that view years back, she got married with the accused (respondent No.1). Although, at the time of marriage, he took sufficient dowry but kept on demanding more dowry and cash amount from her parents and upon failure to meet the demand, assaulted her both physically and mentally on 26/6/2007 and 4/2/2007 and thereafter drove her out from his house. 6. Although, at the time of marriage, he took sufficient dowry but kept on demanding more dowry and cash amount from her parents and upon failure to meet the demand, assaulted her both physically and mentally on 26/6/2007 and 4/2/2007 and thereafter drove her out from his house. 6. In support of the aforesaid complaint, PW-1 in her deposition stated that she entered into the marital tie with the accused respondent No.1 in 2006. After about 1 ½ or 2 months of happy married life, the accused respondent No.1 started demanding motor cycle and golden ornaments. He also demanded transfer of the house of her father in his name. Upon failure to fulfill the demands, the accused inflicted upon her both physical and mental torture and eventually drive her away from her house. Though she again went to her husband’s house, she was again meted out with physical torture and thereafter drove her away. According to her, the incident was witnessed by PW-2 and PW-3 who arranged an auto-rickshaw and sent her home. Since then she had been living in her parental house for the last 3 ½ years. 7. PW-2 and PW-3 are the witnesses to whom the PW-1 referred to in her deposition. Both these witnesses in their deposition stated that one day in the morning when they were plucking flowers, saw the accused assaulting the complainant. They sent her to her parental house. In the cross examination, both the witnesses admitted that they did not have any knowledge of any demand of dowry by the accused persons. They also stated that they were not aware as to the reason for the dispute between the complainant and her husband. PW-2 and PW-3 are the members of the particular Mahila Samity. Both PW-2 and PW-3 admitted that no complaint was lodged by the complainant regarding demand of dowry. 8. When the complainant made an allegation of torturing her by the accused persons on demand of dowry, it was incumbent on her part to prove the same by cogent and reliable evidence. It has rightly been held by the learned Trial Court that it would be a case of lack of adjustment but not a case of torturing the complainant on demand of dowry. It has rightly been held by the learned Trial Court that it would be a case of lack of adjustment but not a case of torturing the complainant on demand of dowry. Even if the story narrated by PW-2 and PW-3 is believed to be true, in absence of anything to show that the same was as a result of failure to meet the demand of dowry, the ingredients of section 498A IPC cannot be said to be established. 9. In view of the above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 25/11/2010 and the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class in CR Case No. 154/2007. Consequently the appeal stands dismissed. 10. The Registry shall send down the LCR to the learned court below along with a copy of the judgment and order.