lt"T-: ,/:•' } -i.tG li,: ''I. .fl .<"1 IB,1^ Hoa'ble glui Saies&was' Lal Jfcanwar, J« State of Madhya Pradesh Anui Kumar itSt Judement for coasideration 7 ^. ^^ 13. JUDGE -s-aoos Sd/- Deshmukh Judge Sd/- >-K.'By»rie flJi^^U^^ir V Hou'&le SSu-i ^isesfcwar La2 JSisswsr, JJ. State of Madhya Pradesh Arun Kumar S/o Bhaiat Lal Sahu. aged 25 ycars, R/o Kaldafcri, Police Stetion- n Dongargaon, T~^-"c^-^-'^/'k4-_ l^^^^-y^ rf-h-fl^>/^, Tehsil- f<~s-rl/yo^>^*a t ^•"c^-f^-v^/'k'^^ l-^^^-^-y^ rf-h-fl^>^-4 /v/-^ /Ti-f^ i^'t-'AJt^cu. ^ctOj.Jf., i^J(.i3 Li. JL</ i.. ~ r'*LCAjAAciLlJLtJL^cit>ll P3fSSS22,t: Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, Paael Lawyer for the State/appellant. Shri Anand Shukla, counsel for the respondent. JUDGMENT (DeUvered On ^f_. 5.2009) Per Rajeshwar Lal Jhanwar, J. 1. This is aa appeal agauist fhe order ofacquittal, passed bv the il Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgoaa on 12.6.1990 in S.T.No. 12/90, whereby the leamed Additional Sessions Judge acauitted the respondent of fhe charees uader Sectioas 498-A aud 307 ofthe IPC and convicted him imder Section 323 ofIPC, however, he has been released under the provisions of Section 3 ofthe Probation ofOffenders Act and ordered to pay Rs. 600/- as coinpensation to coniplamant -Th' Bai. 2. The case of prosecution, ui brief, is that coiapIainaat-Tii Bai was married to Anui Kum.ar. Her Gauna took place on »t !pan" .,(S»'1":':-^ ^^^.. ..<•" "!!*• "s!^iB^-;y a's;S*,. ^i^^^^S^i ^^S^^'S1''^"'''""^ :i1 21.4.1989 aad, fhereafter, she started liviag ^vifh her husbaad. Ker husband, on account of deinaad of dowry i.e. scooter, fan etc... started treatmg her \vith cruelty. In the night of 21.5. 1989, when she was sleeoiag alone with ber busband i.e. rcsDondent. she felt soiae pressure on neck. She woke-up aiid saw taat her husband was throtfting her neck with rope. She started cryme and uarrated the story to her sister-iu-law fNanad)- Yashoda Bai and slept along \viih 1a.er. In fhe next inomine she described the incideut to her in-Iaws aiid went to her matemal hoiue. where she stated fhe story to her parents. On 28.5.1989, she lodged the report. FIR was registered and fhe matter was uivestigated. After iuvestigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistiate First Class, Ra.inaadgaon under Sections 498-A S& 307 of IPC against respondent. JudiciaE Magistrate First Class coixunitted tlie case to the Coiut of Sessions, from where the case was m.ade over to the learaed II Additional Sessions Judge. Rainandgaon for trial. 3. Charge under Sections 498 -A and 307 ofthe IPC was fi-amed agaiast the respondent. Respondent abjured fhe guilt aiid his defence was fhat he has been falsely naplicated, 4. Leam.ed Additional Sessions Juds? recorded the evidence, examin.ed the accused aad heard both the oarties aad niniutelv evaliiated ttie evidence. Leam.ed trial Court held that there is no evidence reRarding dem.aad of do^vry iBade by the respondent aad also there is no evidence to substaiitia.te the guilt iind.er Section 307 of fhe IPC. Therefore. leamed trial Court vide iiuDURned iudement acauitted the respondent froin both the charges. 5. Both fhe parties were heard at lensth and record of fhe trial Court was perused. 6. Tii Bai (P.W.-l) wife of tlie resoondent lived iu her matnmonial hoiae for about 1 m.onfh 3 days. Shc did not coxaplain to aavone that she was beine treated with cruelty for demaad of \i do^vrv. Even ia her cross-exanim.anon. she clearly stated that her husbaud did not make any deinand for do\»7iy. In para-]7 of her cross-exaiauiation, slie also deposed taat it is her guess that fhe appeUant was the person who had pressed her neck. The iaordiuate delay in lodgiag ftie FIR has also not been explained. So far as assault is conceraed, Dr. Arvind Kiiinar Gupta (P.W.5), who examined the coniplaiaaat, has deposed tbat the iniun' which was found on the oerson of ftie coniplaiat was siruple iu nature and not sufficieat to cause her death iu tlie ordinary course of nature. The iniury sustained by Tii Bai was simple. There is no evidence of do\vrv as giveu bv Tn Bai (P.W.l), wife of fhe respondent, Bhagwat Rain (P.W.3) & Lekhram fP.W.-4) aad accord.iag to Dr. Arvin.d Kiunar Gupta, ttiere was no srievous iniury. ExceDt as inentioned above. fhere is no ofher evidence. The above evidence is not sufficient to iinplicate fbe respondent under Sections 498 -A and 307 of IPC. 7. In our considered oninion. leamed trial Court did not conunit aay error in recorduie the iiupugned order of acquittal. 8. In the result.the order ofacquittal passed by the trial Court is Biaisitained and the appeal is disniissed. ——---_ _ _— Sd/- Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar DiUpRaosaheb Deshmukh Judge Judge