Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2622 (JHR)

Juli Pathak v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-11-30

H.C.MISHRA, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2018
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The informant-appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of acquittal dated 11.12.2017, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-1, Pakur, in Sessions Trial No. 143 of 2011, whereby, the accused-respondents, who are the husband and mother-in-law of the informant-appellant, and facing trial for the offences under Sections 498-A, 307, 315 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, have been acquitted by the Trial Court below. Aggrieved thereby, the present acquittal appeal has been filed by the informant, in which I.A. No. 9033 of 2018 has been filed, seeking leave to appeal against the impugned Judgment of acquittal. 3. The impugned Judgment shows that the informant-appellant had filed the written report before the police, on the basis of which, FIR had been lodged, wherein, she had alleged that she was married to the accused Rajesh Pathak on 22.6.2003, who was a Clerk in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Pakur. After the marriage, they were blessed with two daughters. She had no male issue, due to which, she was being taunted by her husband and mother-in-law. They also tortured her physically and she was kept confined in the house and she was not provided with proper food etc. It is also alleged that there was a demand of Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry, and her brother had made part payment of Rs. 50,000/- to the accused persons. It is alleged that on 31.3.2010 in the night, her husband told her that he was to marry another lady, and she was assaulted by fists and was elbowed. Due to severe assaults upon abdomen, there was profuse bleeding and she got unconscious. It is stated that she was having the pregnancy, which had been terminated due to the assaults, and she was treated by one Dr. Anita Sinha, who also confirmed that her pregnancy was aborted. On this allegation, the FIR was lodged and ultimately, the husband and mother-in-law were put to trial. 4. The impugned Judgment shows that though the informant appellant and her family members have supported the prosecution case, but Dr. Anita Sinha, who had examined the victim lady, has also been examined as P.W.-8, and according to her evidence, she did not find any mark of violence on the body of the informant. 4. The impugned Judgment shows that though the informant appellant and her family members have supported the prosecution case, but Dr. Anita Sinha, who had examined the victim lady, has also been examined as P.W.-8, and according to her evidence, she did not find any mark of violence on the body of the informant. There was no sign of abortion and fetus was of 12 weeks old. She had also stated that there was no history of abortion at all. It is an admitted case that thereafter the informant had given birth to a third child. 5. The impugned Judgment shows that in spite of these evidences on record, even in the Court, the appellant, who had examined as P.W.-7 and her father, who was examined as P.W.-5, had stated that she had suffered abortion due to the assaults. It has also come in the evidence that one Nipu Acharya, who was also examined as P.W.-6, had supported the prosecution case, but in his cross-examination, it was admitted by him that the house of her husband was sold to him by the informant herself. On the basis of these materials on record, the Court below has acquitted the accused respondents of the charges. 6. We do not find any such inherent illegality in the impugned Judgment of acquittal so as to call for any interference by this Court. As such, no case is made out for granting leave to appeal against the impugned Judgment of acquittal. Accordingly, I.A. No. 9033 of 2018 filed for seeking leave to appeal against the impugned Judgment of acquittal, is hereby, dismissed. 7. Consequently, this acquittal appeal also stands dismissed, being bereft of any merit.