IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.2 of 2011 Smt. Vimmi Verma Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 6/ 1.7.2011 Heard Shri Laxmi Narain Das, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing in support of the application seeking special leave to appeal against the judgment dated 22nd September, 2010 rendered by Shri Dina Nath Singh, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case no. 3164 C of 2005 / Trial No. 2241 of 2010 by which the learned trial court acquitted the respondents of charges under section 498A IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Undisputedly, the complainant Vimmi Verma was married to respondent Rakesh Kumar Sinha. The allegation is that a total amount of Rs.3,40,000 besides some articles as presents were given before finalization of the marriage and after solemnization of it, the lady complainant came to reside in the house of the respondents situated at Hyderabad. The allegation is centered round a particular house at Hyderabad where the lady was ill treated and tortured and at some occasions, she was abused even hr showness in preparing tea. Not only that, because her father had not given a cot to her, she was forced to sleep on the floor of the house and was branded insane. It is alleged in that connection that she was, besides being assaulted, was taken to different doctors, ojha and sorcerers where various treatments were meted out to her. Lastly, she stated 2 that she was taken to a psychiatrist who diagnosed that she was mentally fit whereafter her husband wanted himself to be treated. Lastly, the lady was sent to the parents’ house with one of the accused Rajesh Sinha. Three witnesses appeared during the course of trial, which included the complainant and her father, who were examined as P.Ws 2 and 1 respectively. The trial court did not take into consideration the evidence of P.W. 3 as it did not treat the evidence admissible. The evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 was on the demand of dowry amount as also the items and articles and in that connection the father of the complainant P.W. 1 Ghanshyam Narayan Verma has stated that an amount of Rs.86000 was given through a bank draft and the remainder amount of Rs.1,90,000 was paid in five instalments with another payment of Rs.64000 in cash. The learned trial court has held that the proof of the above fact could have been by production of evidence about purchasing, the demand draft for Rs.86000 in favour of Rajesh Kumar Sinha. As regards the demand and payment of cash of Rs.1,90,000 and Rs.64000 excepting the oral evidence of P.W. 1, there was no other support coming from any reliable source. The learned trial judge, as such, held that it was very difficult for him to uphold the allegations and record a finding as regards the proof of charges under sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. As regards the charge under section 498A IPC, the allegations were multiple and the evidence being solitary, that too 3 indefinite as it regards date wise or place wise. To appreciate the evidence of P.W. 3, it could be said to be hear say inasmuch as he deposed about the incident after coming to know from P.W. 2. So far as the allegation of branding the complainant insane is concerned, this Court does not have any hesitation in holding that it could be one of the worst instances of torturing any person, may be a lady or a gent. But, when I was scanning the evidence on record, what appeared to me was that there could be dictomus visualization in arriving at an inference on the allegations. If the prosecution was pleading that the court should raise an inference of torturing the lady, the defence plea that it might be exhibiting sheer interest of the family members to get her treated at various levels including at the levels of their faith and superstitions may also not be ruled out. It is well settled that if there could be two inferences out of the evidence adduced in the case, then the inference in favour of the accused has to be drawn. Going by that particular principle of law, the court had no other alternative but to pass an order of acquittal. The whole application seeking special leave to appeal was resisted by learned counsel for the respondents on a solitary ground that the allegations coming from the mouth of P.W. 2, the complainant, revolved round Hyderabad and the court at Patna might not have any jurisdiction to take cognizance of evidence and offence and try the respondents. 4 The submission aforesaid ignores the provision of section 179 Cr.P.C. which relates to the cause of acts and its effect taking at different place and in such situation, the courts where the cause had occurred or the effect had taken place, should have the jurisdiction to try such continuing offence. After having said above, I find no good reasons and for that matter compelling reasons to accede to the prayer made by the applicant for grant of special leave to appeal. The petition is dismissed as such. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)