Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 815 (JHR)

Nazma Khatoon v. State of Jharkhand

2019-04-04

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

body2019
JUDGMENT : I.A. No.11264 of 2018 This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for special leave to file the acquittal appeal. 2. The brief facts of this case is that the appellant has filed this Acquittal Appeal challenging the acquittal of the accused persons in Complaint Case of 793 of 2006 by the impugned judgment. In the impugned judgment, learned trial court considered the fact that the dates of the occurrence as mentioned in the complaint are from 01.01.1998 to till the date of filing of the complaint. It has been mentioned in para-12 of the complaint that thirty days before filing of the complaint on 27.09.2006, all the accused persons of the case brought the complainant to her paternal house and repeated their demand and on her father expressing his helplessness, all the accused persons assaulted the complainant and her old father but none of the witnesses of the complainant including the complainant, has specifically stated about this occurrence and several witnesses have categorically stated that the husband of the complainant has never visited the paternal house of the complainant after the marriage and also considering the deposition of C.W.4 where he has admitted that the demand of dowry was made in Dehri and assaulting and abusing also happened at Dehri that is outside the jurisdiction of the trial court and the major contradictions about the evidence of the complainant, the trial court did not believe the statement of the witnesses of the complainant and acquitted the accused persons of the case. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned court below could not properly appreciate the evidence of the witnesses of the complaint, in their proper perspective. It is further submitted that as the deposition of the witnesses was recorded in the court after ten years of lodging the complaint, hence, there are some difference in time and year and the learned trial court erred by relying upon such contradictions in acquitting the accused persons. It is also submitted that because of long lapse of time, the witnesses of the complainant missed in deposing about the part of the occurrences mentioned in the complaint but the same could not be a circumstance for which the entire case of the complainant is to be disbelieved. It is also submitted that because of long lapse of time, the witnesses of the complainant missed in deposing about the part of the occurrences mentioned in the complaint but the same could not be a circumstance for which the entire case of the complainant is to be disbelieved. It is further submitted that the learned court below erred by considering the fact that the complainant is not ready and willing to go to her matrimonial house under any circumstance and that she has inherited the substantial property of her father are the reasons for lodging the complaint. Hence, it is submitted that the appellant be given special leave as envisaged under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for presenting this appeal. 4. Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand defended the impugned judgment and submitted that the learned court below has rightly appreciated the evidence in the record and keeping in view the major contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses, has rightly disbelieved the case of the complainant. Hence, the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of this Court particularly keeping in view that the judgment impugned is one of acquittal of the accused persons. Hence, it is submitted that the special leave for presenting this appeal ought not to be given to the appellant. 5. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the record, I find that in the impugned judgment, the learned magistrate has recorded in detail the contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses and the lack of specific evidence regarding any occurrence having been taken place about the incident mentioned in para-12 of the complaint regarding which there is specific allegation made in the complaint. 6. It is a settled principle of law that in an acquittal appeal, the appellate court would interfere only where there exists perversity of facts and law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph-12 of the case of Uttar Pradesh v. Wasif Haider reported in 2019 (2) Supreme 596 . Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the special leave to present this appeal be granted to the appellant. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the special leave to present this appeal be granted to the appellant. Accordingly, this Interlocutory application, being without any merit is rejected and consequently, this Acquittal Appeal is also dismissed.