Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1019 (JHR)

Anita Bauri v. State of Jharkhand

2018-05-08

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. representing State. 2. Petitioner has sought special leave to appeal in terms of Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment of acquittal passed in C.P.Case No. 1217 of 2009 / T.R. No. 2185 of 2017 on 20.12.2017 by the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad where under the accused persons / opposite party nos. 2 to 5 been acquitted of the charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. There is a delay of 2 days in filing the instant Cr.M.P, which is sought to be condoned through I.A. No. 3419 of 2018. On consideration of submission of the learned counsel for the parties and the explanation furnished in the instant I.A., delay of 2 days in filing the instant petition is condoned. I.A. No. 3419 of 2018 stands disposed of. 4. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. on the merits of the prayer seeking special leave to appeal. 5. As per the allegation made in the complaint, the Complainant/ petitioner herein was married with the accused – Deepak Bauri / opposite party no.2 herein on 04.12.2007. At the time of marriage her parents gifted a Hero Honda Motorcycle, a gold ring, other household articles and cash of Rs.70,000/-. She resided peacefully for 1 month where after the accused persons started demanding colour T.V, fridge, V.C.D and a generator. Parents of the complainant showed their inability to fulfill the demand on which complainant was physically and mentally tortured. Her mother-in-law kept all her ornaments. She became pregnant in the year 2009 when the accused persons assaulted her and drove her out of the house. She gave birth to a girl child but none of the accused persons visited her at the hospital to see the newly born baby. Father of the complainant requested the accused persons to take her back to her sasural on which they asked him to fulfill their demands. A panchayati was called on 02.06.2009 to resolve the dispute, which ended in vain. She was taken to her matrimonial house on 20.06.2009 by her father. However, on 28.06.2009 she was again driven out of the house along with the new born child. That led to the filing of the complaint petition. 6. A panchayati was called on 02.06.2009 to resolve the dispute, which ended in vain. She was taken to her matrimonial house on 20.06.2009 by her father. However, on 28.06.2009 she was again driven out of the house along with the new born child. That led to the filing of the complaint petition. 6. After the complaint case was registered and on inquiry, learned Trial Court finding prima facie case under section 498A of the I.P.C, summoned the accused persons. After the appearance of the accused charge was framed under the aforesaid section. Accusation of charge was explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The complainant examined 5 witnesses in support of her case. C.W.1 is Shayamal Bauri; C.W.2 Kisto Bauri; C.W.3 Minu Bauri; C.W.4 Anita Bauri and C.W.5 Purnima Bauri. The statement of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C on 01.11.2017. 7. The complainant examined herself as C.W.4 and supported the case as made out in the complaint. In her cross examination she had stated that she did not remember the date, month and year when the accused persons assaulted her for the demand of dowry. She had admitted of filing another case against the accused persons in Raghunathpur G.R. Case No. 372 of 2012 in which all the accused persons were acquitted of the charge against them. She could not submit any medical report about the injury sustained on account of torture inflicted upon her by the accused persons. She also alleged second marriage of her husband without her permission, who had taken her signature on a blank paper. She also states that she went to her parental home herself after 1 month of her marriage. C.W.1 has deposed about the gift given at the time of marriage. He had stated that after marriage, on failure to fulfill further demand of the accused, the complainant was driven out of her matrimonial house. In his cross examination, he could not state when the complainant was assaulted for demand of dowry. Complainant’s sasural is 20 km away from his village. According to him all the alleged occurrence took place in her sasural in West Bengal. C.W.2, father of the complainant had supported the complaint case. In his cross examination he had stated that he did not know when panchayati took place. Complainant was the mother of two children. Complainant’s sasural is 20 km away from his village. According to him all the alleged occurrence took place in her sasural in West Bengal. C.W.2, father of the complainant had supported the complaint case. In his cross examination he had stated that he did not know when panchayati took place. Complainant was the mother of two children. She had filed a case against the present accused persons at Raghunathpur West Bengal for the cruelty for demand of dowry, which was pending. C.W.3 had also supported the case of the complainant. However she did not know when the occurrence took place; she did not know when panchayati took place. She had further deposed that Complainant had two children from the marriage. C.W.5, mother of the complainant had also supported the case of the complainant. In her cross examination, she had stated that she did not remember the date, month or year of assault to the complainant. She also stated that no medical report of the complainant for the treatment of assault was submitted in the Court. 8. The defence did not examine any witness but produced the certified copy of the judgment of G.R. Case No. 372 of 2012, marked as Ext.A. 9. The learned Trial Court considering the evidences on record, acquitted the accused persons inter alia holding that none of the witnesses examined could state when was the complainant tortured; when did the alleged occurrence take place; no medical report was produced in the Court though the complainant stated that she was treated by a doctor for the injury sustained after assault by her husband and in-laws. All the witnesses could not state as to how many times the panchayati took place. C.W.1 and C.W.2 accepted that no torture took place in Chirkunda, Dhanbad. The alleged torture for demand of dowry occurred in the sasural of complainant at Purulia, West Bengal. C.W.4 and 2 accepted in the cross examination that in another complaint case filed against the said accused persons under Section 498A of the I.P.C being Raghunathpur G.R. Case No. 372 of 2012, all the accused persons were acquitted by the learned Trial Court. 10. C.W.4 and 2 accepted in the cross examination that in another complaint case filed against the said accused persons under Section 498A of the I.P.C being Raghunathpur G.R. Case No. 372 of 2012, all the accused persons were acquitted by the learned Trial Court. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned judgment inter alia on the ground that the husband of the complainant had resiled from the undertaking submitted before the Court that he would keep the complainant with full honour and dignity in the matrimonial house. The learned Trial Court had not fully considered the acts of torture inflicted on the complainant on failure to fulfill the demand of dowry. In such circumstances, the impugned findings are susceptible to challenge in appeal. Therefore, special leave to appeal may be granted. 11. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for grant of special leave to appeal in view of the findings rendered by the learned Trial Court based on due consideration of the material evidences on record. 12. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and the material discussion on the evidence on record made by the learned Trial Court. We are of the opinion that the learned Trial Court had sufficient reason to hold that the complainant had failed to establish the charge under Section 498A of the I.P.C against the accused persons beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. Neither any specific date of demand of dowry have been proved nor any specific date of incidence of torture; no specific date of panchayati alleged to have undertaken to resolve the dispute or any medical evidence to support the allegation of torture by physical assault have been evidenced on the part of the complainant. Apart from this, the accused persons had been acquitted for the same charge under Section 498A of the I.P.C in a subsequent case lodged by the complainant being Raghunathpur G.R. Case No. 372 of 2012 13. On consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that no good grounds have been made out by the petitioner for grant of special leave to appeal to assail the impugned order before the learned Appellate Court. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed.