Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1635 (JHR)

Mamta Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2017-09-11

ANANDA SEN, H.C.MISHRA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The informant appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment of acquittal dated 30.08.2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Godda, in S.T. No. 81 of 2012, whereby the private respondents, who were facing the trial for the offence under Sections 302/34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code have been acquitted after trial. 3. The impugned Judgment shows that the F.I.R. was lodged by the informant-appellant, who is the daughter of the deceased, stating that her father was running a beetle shop and he usually spent his night also in the beetle shop where the food was used to be sent to him. The informant was married with the respondent Mantu Jaisawal and there was matrimonial dispute between the parties. In the night of occurrence the father of the deceased was found dead in the beetle shop and it is alleged that her father was killed by her husband and his family members due to enmity. 4. The impugned Judgment shows that five witnesses were examined in the case, including the Doctor who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, and the I.O. of the case. The remaining witnesses are the wife of the deceased, the daughter who is the informant in the case and the son of the deceased. None of these are the eye witness to the occurrence. They have only alleged that due to the matrimonial dispute the accused persons had committed the murder. 5. P.W.-4 Dr. Satyandra Mishra, had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and no internal or external ante-mortem injury was found on the deceased. Even the cause of the death of the deceased could not be ascertained by the Doctor conducting the post-mortem examination. 6. Thus, coming to the conclusion that there was no eye witness to the occurrence and the accused persons have been made accused only on the basis of suspicion due to the enmity between the parties, the Court below has acquitted the private respondents giving them the benefits of doubt. 7. We do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment passed by the Trial Court below, worth interference by this Court. 7. We do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment passed by the Trial Court below, worth interference by this Court. Even the application seeking leave to appeal against the Judgment of acquittal has not been filed in this case, in absence of which the present appeal cannot be entertained. 8. Even otherwise as stated above, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.