Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 83 (GAU)

Tabibun Nesha v. State of Assam

2015-01-29

B.K.SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 17.06.2005 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rangia in Case No.325(C)/2002, by which the accused/respondent No.2 has been acquitted of the charges u/s 498A/406 IPC. 2. I have heard Mr. K. Devnath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None has appeared for the respondent No.2. However, Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam is present on behalf of the State. 3. The complainant/appellant had filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup on 01.12.2000 alleging, inter-alia, that her husband although married her according to Muslim Shariyat on 14.03.1998 and out of the said wedlock, a female child was born, but soon thereafter, he started maltreating her demanding dowry. She made the specific date of such maltreatment as 28.09.2000 and 25.11.2000. According to the complainant, she was subjected to cruelty very often. 4. During trial, in respect of the charges u/s 498A/406 IPC, the complainant examined 07(seven) PWs including herself, while the defence examined 03(three) witnesses as DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3 including himself. 5. PW-1 i.e. the complainant in her evidence narrating the incident referred to in the complaint, stated that after the marriage, she had gone to the in-laws house with Stridhan. After about two months of the conjugal life, the accused i.e. the respondent No.2 resorted to maltreatment on demand of dowry. However, in the complaint petition, her statement was that after marriage, they led the conjugal life happily for over one year and it was only thereafter demand of dowry was made and in the process she was ill treated. 6. PW-2 Mukul Choudhury in his deposition stated that PW-1, who was married to the accused/respondent No.2 was ill treated after about 6/7 months of her marriage as was reported by Samser (PW-7). 7. PW-3 while stating about the marriage between the parties, stated about presentation of household articles to PW-1. He in his deposition stated that his sister i.e. PW-1 fled away from the house of the accused when he started ill-treating her on demand of dowry. 8. PW-4 in his deposition stated about providing Stridhan to PW-1. PW-5 in his deposition stated about making the furnitures on the occasion of the marriage between the parties. PW-6 is the Goldsmith who had prepared the ornaments for the purpose of marriage between the parties. 9. 8. PW-4 in his deposition stated about providing Stridhan to PW-1. PW-5 in his deposition stated about making the furnitures on the occasion of the marriage between the parties. PW-6 is the Goldsmith who had prepared the ornaments for the purpose of marriage between the parties. 9. PW-7 is the elder brother of PW-1, who while stating about the marriage performed between the parties and also the Stridhan provided to her, stated that PW-1 was rescued from the house of the accused/respondent No.2. 10. DW-1 is the accused, who in his deposition stated that his wife i.e. the PW-1 left him of her own in spite of his resistance. According to him, she used to go home again and again. It is in his evidence that Stridhan was recovered by the police. 11. DW-2 and DW-3 in their depositions stated about transportation of all the belongings of PW-1 to her home. DW-3 categorically stated that she was never assaulted by the accused/respondent No.2 (DW-1) on demand of dowry. 12. Discussing the aforesaid evidence, the learned trial Court having found contradictions in the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7, has acquitted the accused/respondent No.2. Referring to the grounds urged in the appeal memo, Mr. Devnath, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence on record in its true perspective, but for which the accused would have been convicted. 13. According to the version of PW-1, she was assaulted by DW-1 on 28.09.2000 in presence of PW-2 and PW-7, but it is in the evidence of PW-2 that he was reported by PW-1 that the DW-1 assaulted PW-1 after about 6/7 months. As noted above, as against the version of the PW-1 that she was assaulted by the DW-1 after about two months of the marriage, but in the complaint petition, her version was that they led a happy married life for more than a year. PW-3 in his deposition stated that the PW-1 fled away from her matrimonial home due to ill treatment of the accused(DW-1) on demand of dowry. 14. From the evidence on record, it is found not proved by the complainant that she was beaten up by DW-1 on several occasions such as on 28.09.2000 and 25.11.2000 and that too in presence of PW-2 and PW-7. Both these witnesses are reported witnesses. 14. From the evidence on record, it is found not proved by the complainant that she was beaten up by DW-1 on several occasions such as on 28.09.2000 and 25.11.2000 and that too in presence of PW-2 and PW-7. Both these witnesses are reported witnesses. Version of PW-1 varied with that of the version of PW-2 and PW-7. Although PW-3 in his deposition stated that the PW-1 had to flee from her matrimonial house, but there is no evidence as to how and when she was abused by the accused i.e. the DW-1. According to DW-1 and DW-2, the complainant left her matrimonial home on her own and that soon after her marriage she used to visit her parental house very often. There is also no report of any injury of PW-1. 15. Considering all the above, I see no reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal dated 17.06.2005 of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rangia passed in case No.325 (C)/2002 registered u/s 498A/406 IPC. 16. Accordingly this appeal stands dismissed. 17. Registry shall transmit the case record to the learned Court below along with a copy of this judgment.