IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.32 of 2008 GUNJAN KUMAR, son of late Pasupati Sah, resident of village- Dhobi Tola Hajipur, P.S.- Khagaria, District- Khagaria ---- Complainant/petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Sonelal Sah, son of Saukhi Sah. 3. Indrajit Sah, son of Sonelal Sah. 4. Girja Devi, wife of Sonelal Sah. Residents of village-Kharagpur, P.S.- Sonbarsa Kutchary, District- Saharsa. ---- Opposite Parties ----------- 6 16.4.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This S.L.A. has been filed against the order of acquittal in a case under Sections 304B/34 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that Baby Devi, the daughter of the complainant Pashupati Sah, P.W. 4 was killed by her in laws due to demand of a Colour Television and cash of Rs. 15,000/-. The defence case is that Baby Devi was married in the year 1989 to Indrajit Sah and she died because a wall fell on her. P.W. 4 is the complainant of this case and has stated in his evidence that he learnt about the death of his daughter and went to the police station to give information however, the police did not institute a case and thereafter he has filed the complaint petition. 2 Apart from the informant three other witnesses have been examined. They have supported the case of the prosecution and alleged that the alleged girl was married in the year 1995 and the demand of Colour Television and cash of Rs. 15,000/- was made. However, all three witnesses have been found to be an inimical terms with the opposite parties in this case. P.Ws. 1 and 3 have instituted two cases against the appellant. P.W. 2 is also said to be an inimical terms with the opposite party. The Court after considering this aspect of the matter has not relied on the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3. In fact one of the witnesses has also stated that the marriage took place in the year 1989. Apart from which three defence witnesses have been examined in this case. The defence witnesses have stated that the complainant of this case was present at the time of funeral of Baby Devi and also attended the ‘Shradh’ ceremony. It has been specifically stated by the defence witnesses that the complainant had made a demand from the opposite parties for a sum of money and when it 3 was not paid, they filed a complaint petition. The Court has also considered the fact that the complainant’s sons have not been examined in this case to support the prosecution version. All in all this court does not find any illegality in the findings of the Trial Court in acquitting the opposite parties. This Special Leave to Appeal is thus dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)