IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.33 of 2011 Kumari Jyoti Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 3/ 29.6.2011 Heard Shri Mukesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant Kumari Jyoti, who was the complainant of Complaint Case no. 1697 of 2007 in which the respondents were tried for the charges under sections 323 and 498A/34 IPC. The allegation was that after being married to respondent Arun Kumar Pandey, she was residing in his house where she was pressed for bringing additional dowry of rupees fifty thousand and a motorcycle. The non-fulfillment of demand resulted in ill-treatment and torture of the lady, which was as serious as pouring kerosene oil on her and setting her at fire, as a result of which she was burnt and became unconscious and on re-gaining consciousness she filed the complaint petition. Witnesses were examined including the lady P.W. 2. All witnesses were hear say inasmuch as they were told by P.W. 2 about the whole story of demand of a motorcycle and rupees fifty thousand as also the ill treatment and torture by accused persons besides the act of the accused persons of pouring kerosene oil on her and setting her at fire. But the learned trial judge refused to act upon the evidence of hear say witnesses citing the rule of evidence that hear say evidences are substantive evidences and they could, at best, under a particular circumstance, be corroborative in nature and that 2 also not being available to the trial judge, the witnesses other than P.W. 2 could not be relied upon. As appears from the evidence of P.W. 2, one circumstance which was properly identified by the learned magistrate, was the story of kerosene oil being poured at her so as to set her on fire, as a result of which she lost consciousness, was also not acceptable. The reason assigned by the learned trial magistrate was that the lady was not taken to any doctor or hospital for treatment and during the course of examination, she stated that she was treated by jari buti. The learned magistrate appears irritated in his conscience by pointing out that in case a lady was seriously injured as being burnt, then the ordinary expectation would be that she was treated by a competent hospital or doctor and she is not supposed to be treated by jari buti. I have considered the evidence and reasons assigned by the magistrate in passing the order of acquittal and after having so considered them, I find that the view taken by the learned magistrate was also a reasonable view and in that background, I find no merit in the application for grant of special leave to appeal against the order dated 27.4.2011 passed in the above noted complaint petition. This application is accordingly dismissed. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)