Case Facts:
Patna High Court G. APP. (SJ) No.4 of 2006 dt.08-11-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Govt. Appeal (SJ) No.4 of 2006 (Against the judgment of acquittal dated 05.12.2005 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamui in Criminal Appeal No.169 of 2002, S.R. Case No.788 of 1995/ Trial No.780 of 2002.) =========================================================== The State Of Bihar .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. Saryu Roy 2. Govind Roy 3. Kaushaliya Devi 4. Santosh @ Bhokan Roy .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta- A.P.P. For the Respondent/s: Mr. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sah =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 08-11-2012 Mandhata Singh, J. 1. Prosecution case initiated on the basis of fard-bayan of Smt. Gayatri Devi, in brief, is that she was married with accused-respondent Saryu Roy, ten years ago. After one year of the marriage, her ‘Gauna’ was performed, she came to her matrimonial home. It can be said that for the first time, she came to her sasural. At this occasion, it is alleged that she remained to her sasural (matrimonial home) for fifteen days (15) only. Demand of dowry continued to be made as was being demanded at the occasion of marriage followed by torture and cruelty. The same was informed to informant’s father who taken away the informant with him. At two occasions the informant with her father and on his death with his uncle came to her sasural, but was driven away. After death of the uncle, she again came with her maternal grand father and a villager Nakul Rai, to her sasural, but again she was driven away. She gathered information about next marriage of her Patna High Court G. APP. (SJ) No.4 of 2006 dt.08-11-2012 husband with Geeta Devi. She came to her sasural started to reside there avoiding the protest from accused persons and the second wife Geeta Devi, but was tortured by them. She was maintaining herself on the earning of her working as labourer. Trial ended in conviction by Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamui, same was challenged in appeal vide Criminal Appeal No.169 of 2002, which is allowed after hearing both the parties acquitting the accused-respondents. Acquittal is recorded by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamui, validity of which is challenged by filing the present appeal. 2. It is pertinent to mention here that case was lodged for the offence under [STATUTE] and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, but conviction was recorded by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamui for the offence under [STATUTE] against accused-respondents only. One of the accused persons namely Geeta Devi was acquitted by the trial Court itself. 3. Witnesses have been discussed at length and vital contradictions have been found by the Appellate Court in statement of the witnesses among themselves as well as from the fard-bayan (F.I.R.). First Information Report is to the effect that after a year of the marriage, ‘Gauna’ was performed, she remained for fifteen days (15) to her sasural and again came to her sasural and began to reside there for four months earlier to filing this case. 4. PW-2 Gauri Devi on this point is stating that ‘Gauna’ was performed after five years of the marriage. Informant lived for five years, thereafter came to her parents and told about demand and torture. Another witness PW-3 states about performance of ‘Gauna’, but three years ago. Patna High Court G. APP. (SJ) No.4 of 2006 dt.08-11-2012 Gayatri Devi was assaulted by her in-laws for dowry. According to the first information report, she was residing from four months ago to filing of the first information report to her sasural. These statements are perverse to the material on record (statement of witnesses), is not the submission of learned counsel for the State. Moreover, first information report is lodged after ten years of the marriage. One of the reasons of torture is demand of dowry, continuation of the same for such a long period even after marrying another lady, certainly is not believable, which rightly has been disbelieved by the Appellate Court itself. So, it needs no interference in the same (finding) of the trial Court. 5. Accordingly, this Government Appeal is dismissed hereby. Patna High Court, Patna Dated-08.11.2012 Vikash/ N.A.F.R. (Mandhata Singh, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 498A

Statute Text:
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Punishment for subjecting a married woman to Cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.