Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 420 (TRI)

Lipika Deb v. Rajesh Dey

2022-12-16

T.AMARNATH GOUD

body2022
JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL) 1. Heard Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also heard Mr. S. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant to challenge the judgment dated 13.03.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Tripura, Dharmanagar passed in CR(IPC) No.02 of 2018 whereby the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondents No.1 to 6 under Section 498A of IPC. 3. Brief facts are as under : The case of the appellant, in brief, is that the accused persons being the husband and in-laws of the complainant Smt. Lipika Deb used to beat her up on demand of dowry worth Rs.2,00,000/- and lastly, on 08.04.2016 she was being beaten up severely for which she was bound to return back to her father's house. On receipt of the complaint lodged by the complainant, the learned court below took cognizance of offence against the accused persons. 4. The trial court took cognizance of the offence against the accused persons. The complainant was examined under Section 200 of Cr.P.C and summons was also issued against them. It is pertinent to mention that charge under Section 498A of IPC was also framed against them as they pleaded not guilty. The accused persons were examined under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C and failed to adduce any evidence in support of their claim. The learned court raised the following point for discussion : 'Whether the accused persons being the husband and the in-laws of complainant Smt. Lipika Deb tortured her on demand of Rs.2,00,000/-?' 5. The prosecution examined as many as 3(three) witnesses such as, P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3. After hearing the witnesses the learned trial Judge observed that although in the written complaint it was alleged that she was being beaten up severely both physically and mentally on demand of dowry, none of the witnesses revealed as to how the complainant was assaulted by the accused persons. There was no medical document to substantiate the fact of injury on the complainant. None of the prosecution witnesses deposed that the filthy languages uttered by the accused person to cause mental torture on the complainant. Subsequently, the trial court found the case of the appellant was a vague one. 6. There was no medical document to substantiate the fact of injury on the complainant. None of the prosecution witnesses deposed that the filthy languages uttered by the accused person to cause mental torture on the complainant. Subsequently, the trial court found the case of the appellant was a vague one. 6. After hearing the argument from both sides and after careful examination of the evidence on record, the learned court below acquitted the accused persons under Section 498A of IPC. The Judge observed that in matrimonial cases, the principles of quick filing of FIR/Court complaint do not strictly apply as in these cases emotions of the complainant are involved. But a delay is of 22 months can lead not only to embellishment of a story, but also cooking up a total new story by the complainant against the accused persons. Therefore, such a long delay should not be treated lightly. He further observed that the delay in lodging the complaint remained unexplained. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under : 'Hence, accused Sri Rajesh Dey, Sri Ramakanta Dey, Smt. Chandana Dey, Smt. Anita Dey, Smt. Sampa Dey and Smt. Bhani Deb(Rubi) are acquitted of the offence alleged and are set at liberty forthwith. The bail bonds furnished u/s 437A of Cr.P.C shall remain in force for next six months.' 7. Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the finding given by the learned court below is perverse and illegal and the learned court below arrived at a definite conclusion without proper appreciation of evidence on record which resulted into grave miscarriage of justice. Counsel further contends that the learned court below ought to have acquitted the accused persons and all the witnesses have not been properly examined. 8. On the other hand, Mr. S. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submits that the learned trial court has not committed any error in acquitting the accused persons as they are being falsely implicated in this case. Counsel further contends that the judgment passed by the learned court below calls for no interference. 9. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court is of the considered view that the learned court below has not committed any error in passing the judgment. Counsel further contends that the judgment passed by the learned court below calls for no interference. 9. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court is of the considered view that the learned court below has not committed any error in passing the judgment. On appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses examined during trial, this Court finds no incriminating materials against the accused persons and as such the learned trial Judge has rightly passed the judgment in acquitting the accused persons which calls for no interference. 10. Accordingly, this Court finds no merits in the appeal and directs dismissal of the same. 11. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.