Case Facts:
Patna High Court SLA No.14 of 2012 (6) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.14 of 2012 ====================================================== Bibi Munisha Khatoon wife of Razaul Haque, daughter of late Irfan, resident of Pake Tola, P.S.-Abadpur, Dist.-Katihar. .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.Razaul Haque son of Sadiruddin 3.Tajnihar Khaton wife of Razaul Haque Both resident of village-Paka Tola, P.S.-Abadpur, Dist.-Katihar .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 6 19-06-2012 The present application has been filed under section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of special leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 1.12.2011 passed by Sri S.P.Anand, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Katihar in Complaint Case No.2130 of 2000/Trial No.2961 of 2011 by which the opposite party no.2 and 3 have been acquitted for the charges punishable under [STATUTE] . The prosecution case as per the complaint petition dated 25.11.2000 filed by the complainant Bibi Munisha Khatoon is that she was married to the appellant in 1985 as per the Muslim customs and rites. She started cohabiting with the appellant and out of wedlock she gave birth to two children, a son named Imtiyaz Jabir aged about 13 years and a daughter named Pinki Patna High Court SLA No.14 of 2012 (6) Khatoon aged about 11 years. The appellant re-married one Taznihar Khatoon and started living with her. Thereafter the complainant was subjected to cruelty in various ways for non- fulfilment of demand of dowry. Ultimately, on 4.10.2000 the complainant was abused, assaulted and expelled from her matrimonial home along with her children. She started living with her mother. A panchayati was convened but the accused did not agree to keep her unless demands are fulfilled. After taking cognizance of the offence charges were framed against the accused persons under [STATUTE] to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In course of trial apart from the complainant/ petitioner three other witnesses were examined. Some documents were also exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. The defence did not produce any oral evidence but exhibited documents in support of their innocence. The defence has proved petition dated 5.9.1991 of Misc. Case No. 84 of 1991 under Sections 304 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights and Divorce) Act, 1986 (Ext-A), the deposition of DW-1 Jabir Hussain (Exhibit-2) and deposition of D.W.-2 Seikh Shamin Haque (Exhibit-B/1) in Maintenance Case No. 43 of 2001. The trial court after considering the oral and documentary evidence led on behalf of the parties came to a Patna High Court SLA No.14 of 2012 (6) finding that the prosecution has failed in proving the charges against the accused persons for committing the offences punishable under [STATUTE] beyond all reasonable doubt and thus acquitted the accused persons. I have perused the judgment and find that in paragraph 11 of the judgment, the trial court has given cogent reason for acquitting the accused. The findings recorded by the trial court are based on material on record and can neither be called illegal or perverse. I find no merit in the present application and accordingly leave to appeal is refused. The application is thus dismissed. Md.S./- (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 323

Statute Text:
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing hurt. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.