s^t"- SinalQBencb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH Cr. Rev. No.^^€/2006 APPLICANT (pcrmp^ainant) ^:.-7T- 1 . ^^^^ •w'^A^^VJ--',^^Atft I^^'^AO^^'' ' A^oe '^^ -^^ VL.fc0 ^ NON-APPUCANT Purnima Bai W/o Sheetal Prasad, D/o Lakhan Lal Sury^ansi, Aged about 21 Years, R/o Village -- Giddha, Police Station Navagarh, District - Janjgir - Champa (Chhattisgarh) Present Address - R/o Village and Post- Kuthur, Police Station - :[ .-iPa.mgarh, District - Janjgir- Champa(Chhattisgarh) VERSUS 1. Sheetal Prasad S/o Gendram Aged about 22 Years, \\.^^ ^.'<-J w- 2. Gendram S/o Manglu Satnami, ^^ Aged about 47 Years, 3. Saraarin Bai W/o Gendram Satnami, Aged about41 years, w. ^ p, 4. Birasbai D/o Gendrani Aged about 20 Years. All are Residence of ~ Village - Giddha, Police Station Navagarh, Distt. - Janjgir- Ch'ampa (Chhattisgarh) r:};.:.\ ..... 5. State of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Navagarh, Distdct - Janjgir- Champa (Chhattisgarh) CRIMINAL REVISION ONDER SECTION 397 READWITH SECTION 401 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE ^^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Revision No. 528 of 2006 APPLICANT RESPONDENTS VERSUS Purnima Bai Sheetal Prasad and others Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel counsel for the applicant. Shri Arvind Singh counsel for the respondent No. 1 to 4. ShirVivekSharma PL for respondent No. 5/State. CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 397/401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ORDER (26.07.2010) This revision is directed against the order dated 26.07.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Janjgir in Criminal Case No. 278/2006 acquitting the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 ofthe charges under sections 498-A, 506- B, 323 read with section 34 IPC. " 2, The brief facts of the case are that on 14.09.2005 FIR (Ex.P-1) was lodged by complainant/applicant Purnima Bai (PW-1) alleging that her marriage was solemnized with respondent No.1 - Sheetal Prasad and from the very beginning of her marriage she was subjected to cruelty by respondent Nos.1 to 4 demanding Rs. 1,00,000 from her. After investigation challan was filed by the police on 06.10.2005 and charges were framed by the Court below on 29.5.2006. f^ 3. So as to hold the accused/respondents guilty, prosecution has examined 10 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused/respondents were also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedyre in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. 4. Counsel for the applicant submits that on the basis of evidence as adduced by the prosecution, the Court below ought to have convicted the accused persons but ignoring the overwhelming evidence to theeffect that the complainant/applicant was subjected to cruelty by them, the Court below has erred in law in acquitting them. i ^ %. Y^y '^s^^" .. ''2. - 5. Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submits that even if the statement of complainant is taken as it is, the cruelty having been meted out to the complainant as alleged against the respondents/accused is not established. On the contrary, present appears to be a case where the complainant did not adjust herself with her husband and his family members and therefore, she opted to make allegations against them. 6. From the statement of complainant (PW-1) it is clear that after her marriage she was kept for 3-4 months properly by the accused persons. It is also clear that marriage of the complainant was solemnized on 11.5.2005 and the complaint was made on 14.09.2005 i.e. after four months of her marriage and if she was kept properly for about 3-4 months then it is difficult to understand as to how she Was subjected to cruelty. She has further stated that the accused persons used to taunt her saying that expenditure incurred in marriage was not given by the parents of the complainant nor the articles given by them were sufficient. The accused/respondents are also alleged to have passed the taunts on her saying that she had come from a poor family background. In her statement the complainant herself has nowhere alleged that Rs. 1 ,00,000 were ever demanded by the accused persons though otherwitnesses Smt. Gomti Bai (PW-2), Raju Prasad (PW-4) and Smt. Janki Bai (PW-7) have stated to this effect. Statements of the witnesses are not consistent and it appears that all the witnesses have exaggerated their version. The statemehts of these witnesses create doubt in the mind of this Court that the complainant was subjected to cruelty. 7. Thus in view of the discussion made above, the findings recorded by the Court below acquitting the respondents/accused appear to be based on due appreciation of the evidence available on record and do not warrant any interference in this revision. Accordingly, the revision being without substance is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed as such. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge