Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1507 (JHR)

Manjit Kaur v. State of Jharkhand

2018-07-11

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2018
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Petitioner has sought special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment of acquittal dated 20.06.2017 passed in C/1 Case No. 418 of 2009 by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur where under all the accused persons facing trial have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 498A, 323,406,120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. As per the case of the complainant, she was married to one Jaspal Kumar Singh on 27.04.2005 in her paternal house as per Sikh rites and customs at Azad Bustee, P.S. Telco, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum. She has described the accused persons as father-in-law; 5 of them were elder or younger brother-in-law; 3 of them were sister-in-law and last one is son of one brother-in-law. According to her she was not allowed to stay in the house of in-laws unless she paid a sum of Rs.50,000/-in cash or kind. It further appears from the complaint petition at Annexure-1 that she was allowed to stay in the matrimonial house after payment of Rs.50,000/-but the accused persons again started abusing her and subjected her to cruelty. She was also beaten up. She alleged that those persons wanted to oust her and grab the share of her husband. Her husband was also beaten up. The local police was informed, which led to the institution of G.R. Case No. 1170 of 2008 under Section 323/324/341 against the younger brother of the husband namely Madanlal. It is stated that the said accused had pleaded guilty before the learned Court where the proceedings were pending. She gave birth to a male child on 22.01.2007, however all accused persons had been regularly threatening to oust her from the matrimonial house unless she fulfilled the demand of further Rs.1,00,000/-. On 29.01.2009 at 8.30 P.M. all the accused demanded Rs.1,00,000/-and on flat refusal by the complainant, she was beaten mercilessly and attempt was also made to burn her alive and in result the complainant sustained physical injuries and her middle finger of left hand was badly injured . She along with her husband and minor son left for her paternal house after leaving all her articles and jewellary in a room by locking it. She along with her husband and minor son left for her paternal house after leaving all her articles and jewellary in a room by locking it. They reported the matter to Telco Police Station who referred her to M.G.M. Hospital and also forwarded the report to Sonari Police Station. She was treated at M.G.M. Hospital. The accused persons threw her minor son on the floor who sustained injury. 4. Based on these allegations, complaint case was instituted. After solemn affirmation of the complainant and inquiry, accused persons were summoned to face the charge under section 498A, 323, 406/120B of the I.P.C and Section 4 of the D.P.Act. They appeared and pleaded not guilty on the accusation being explained to them. Trial commenced thereafter. 5. Complainant examined 4 witnesses. On conclusion of the evidence of the complainant statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C on 10.02.2012. The Defence had adduced 5 witnesses in support of their case. C.W.1 is the sister of the complainant; C.W.2 is her father; C.W.3 is her husband, whose evidence was expunged and C.W.4 is the complainant herself. Learned Trial Court discussed the evidences of the complainant witnesses in the light of the allegations made and also the defence version. It however came to a finding that statements of C.W.1 and 2 were different on the point of assault and further event of reporting to the Police and going to the paternal house. C.W.1, sister of the complainant stated having seen the assault on the complainant on 29.01.2009 who went to her neighbor Sukhwinder Singh who gave a shawl to cover herself. However, during examination complainant did not name Sukhwinder Singh and did not examine him, though he was one of the main witnesses who could have deposed about the incidence. C.W.1 also spoke that she saw blood on the body of her sister when she returned to her paternal house, though she stated that she was present at the time of incidence. C.W.1 also stated that after the incidence complainant went to her paternal house and thereafter to the Police Station and to the Hospital. C.W.2, her father on the other hand stated that complainant had gone to the police station and thereafter to the paternal house. These 3 witnesses therefore made different statements about what happened after the incidence. C.W.1 also stated that after the incidence complainant went to her paternal house and thereafter to the Police Station and to the Hospital. C.W.2, her father on the other hand stated that complainant had gone to the police station and thereafter to the paternal house. These 3 witnesses therefore made different statements about what happened after the incidence. Claim of C.W.1 as eye witness to the alleged incidence therefore, was not acceptable. The complainant had not adduced any documentary proof such as prescription, discharge report etc. of her treatment at M.G.M hospital. Finding inconsistencies in the statement of the complainant witnesses and lack of any other corroborative evidence to establish the allegation of assault and treatment at M.G.M. Hospital, learned Trial Court arrived at an opinion that the allegations have not been proved beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. It can also be taken note of the fact that complainant made allegations against 10 persons, practically all the family members in her in-laws house but the evidence is completely lacking in that regard as to the complicity of any of these individual except one Vijay Kumar, who was younger brother-in-law of the complainant. Omnibus allegations have been made but have remained unsubstantiated. The accused therefore were granted the benefit of doubt and were acquitted. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that findings of the learned Trial Court are flawed as the entire discussion is in relation to the incidence of 29.01.2009 only though allegations were made about the past conduct also. Learned Trial Court has not discussed the documentary evidence, Ext.1,2,3 and 4 which were requisition of Telco P.S.; photo copy of the written report dated 30.01.2009; written report dated 23.12.2007 not signed by her on account of her injury in finger etc. Learned Trial Court has also failed to take into account that the injury was on finger of the left hand and did not require admission in Hospital for few days. 7. However, we find from the discussion of the evidences made by the learned Trial Court that C.W.2 had stated that complainant was admitted for 3 days where as the complainant stated that she was admitted for treatment for 3 hours. These inconsistencies have demolished the case of the petitioner who had made omnibus allegations against the 10 accused persons. 8. However, we find from the discussion of the evidences made by the learned Trial Court that C.W.2 had stated that complainant was admitted for 3 days where as the complainant stated that she was admitted for treatment for 3 hours. These inconsistencies have demolished the case of the petitioner who had made omnibus allegations against the 10 accused persons. 8. Learned A.P.P. has supported the findings of the learned Trial Court and opposed the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. On consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the discussion made, we do not find any good ground made out on behalf of the petitioner to allow the instant petition seeking special leave to appeal. The instant petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.