Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 957 (JHR)

Babita Devi @ Babli v. State of Jharkhand

2015-08-12

P.P.BHATT, VIRENDER SINGH

body2015
Order : Virender Singh, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by one Babita Devi @ Bablicomplainant -victim showing her grievance against the acquittal earned by her husband-Aditya Chourasiya and his other four family members (respondent nos.2 to 6 respectively) for the charge of Section 498(A)/307/323 IPC vide impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI- Special Fast Track Court, Dhanbad dated 10th May, 2013. 2. Pursuant to notice, Mr.K.S.Nanda, learned counsel, appears for all the five acquitted respondents. For perusal, lower court record has also been called for. 3. The instant appeal is at admission stage and we have heard learned counsel for both the sides at length. Some material evidence from the trial court record has also been perused by us. 4. Mr.Mukesh Bihari Lal, learned counsel appearing for appellant-complainant, states that trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence of complainant-Babita Devi @ Babli which has caused grave prejudice to the complainant. He submitted that other evidence produced by complainant was also worth credence for the purposes of holding all the accused guilty for the offence of Section 498(A)/307/323 IPC but the learned trial court on flimsy ground has rejected the same. 5. On the contrary, Mr. Nanda appearing for acquitted respondents submitted that, in fact, complainant had already married to one Sanjay Kumar Gupta before she got married to respondent- Aditya Chourasiya, which fact was not known to Aditya Chourasiya at all. He submitted that complainant had also filed a case against Sanjay Kumar Gupta alleging that she was being tortured by him and his family members and it is from there only Aditya Chourasiya came to know that complainant, in fact, had married to one Sanjay Kumar Gupta and had kept this fact close to her chest. This turns out to be a ground for respondent-Aditya Chourasiya to filed a petition for declaring his marriage as null and void, which petition was ultimately decreed in his favour. Learned counsel fairly submitted that complainant has also filed a First Appeal against the said decree, whereby marriage between Aditya Chourasiya and complainant was declared null and void and that operation of the said decree has been stayed. He however submitted that the evidence otherwise led by complainant appears to be most weak on the face of it to prove any of the charges against the respondents. 6. He however submitted that the evidence otherwise led by complainant appears to be most weak on the face of it to prove any of the charges against the respondents. 6. Mr.Nanda submitted that learned trial court has discussed each and every aspects very minutely and even the allegation leveled by complainant that at one stage when she was turned out of the matrimonial home and she stayed with grand father of respondent- Aditya Chourasiya where her father and Jagdish Chourasiya( father-in-law) were called and from where she was sent back to matrimonial home, at that stage certain blank papers were got signed by her, which were used subsequently. Mr.Nanda submitted that not even that, the learned trial court also thrashed prosecution evidence vis-a-vis charge of Section 307 IPC observing that the said charge is also not proved, the same being absolutely baseless. In this regard, learned counsel has drawn attention of the Court to the relevant discussion available on internal pages-15 and 16 of the impugned judgment. 7. Learned counsel submitted that the other aspects of filing the civil cases have also been discussed in detail by the learned trial court and ultimately trial court came to a categoric conclusion that case of complainant is not proved against any of the accused (acquitted respondents) beyond reasonable doubt. 8. We have also once again re-scanned the prosecution evidence minutely and found that the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court is based on threadbare analysis of prosecution evidence. Finding no infirmity in the same on any count, it does not call for our interference. The instant appeal thus merits dismissal, at this stage itself. Ordered accordingly. 9. Trial court record be remitted back to the learned trial court.