THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1678 of 2004 ORDER: This appeal at the instance of the State is directed against the acquittal of the accused in C.C.No.414 of 1999 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bodhan on 12.12.2001. The respondents herein, who are accused Nos.2 to 6, along with accused No.1 were prosecuted for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. According to the prosecution prior to 10.12.1999 accused No.1 at the instigation of accused Nos.2 to 6 harassed P.W.1 for additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- for his proposed departure to the Gulf Country. P.W.1 expressed her inability to get the said amount, then all the accused beat her mercilessly. Thereafter, she informed the harassment to P.Ws.2 and 3 and they pacified the matter by holding a panchayat and P.W.2 paid Rs.5,000/- and expressing his inability to pay the amount as demanded by them. In the month of March, 1999, accused No.1 left abroad, while leaving India accused No.1 told to P.W.1 that she should pay the remaining amount of Rs.45,000/- to his parents. Thereafter, accused Nos.2 to 6 used to harass her for getting additional dowry of Rs.45,000/- from her parents. In the month of October, 1999 her brother-in-law Abdul Subhan returned from Gulf countries, who also threatened her to get additional dowry of Rs.45,000/- and beat her severely, for which she lodged a complaint with the police. Basing on which, police registered a case in Crime No.305 of 1999 under Section 498-A IPC. After completion of the investigation, police filed the charge sheet against the accused. The learned Magistrate has framed the charges under Section 498- A IPC against accused Nos.2 to 6 and they pleaded not guilty for the said charge. In order to establish the said charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P.1 and P.2. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused, but Exs.D.1 and D.2 were marked on their behalf. Taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, the lower Court found the accused not guilty for the said charge and acquitted them. Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal. Now, the point that arises for consideration is: Whether the prosecution could able to establish the offence under Section 498-A IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt? P O I N T: The case of the prosecution is that accused No.1 intended to go to Riyaz i.e. Gulf country and demanded the P.W.1 to get Rs.50,000/- from her parents and when she expressed her inability to get the said amount, all the accused harassed her and beat her severely. Subsequently, a panchayat was held. In the said panchayat P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 have pacified the matter by payment of Rs.5,000/-. Thereafter also all the accused harassed the P.W.1 by demanding to get additional amount of Rs.45,000/-. P.W.1 in her evidence has stated that after the marriage she lived happily with accused No.1 for 5 months. Thereafter, all the accused began demanding her to get Rs.50,000/- to meet the expenses for the proposed departure of her husband to Soudi Arebia. The said amount was demanded towards additional dowry. Accused No.1 took her to her parents and asking her to get the amount. Her father expressed his inability to pay the said amount. Thereupon accused No.1 brought her back to his house and continued to harass her by beating. In pursuance of such demand, he again sent her to her parental house to get the money. Her father arranged Rs.5,000/- and paid the same to accused No.1. Accused No.1 left for the Gulf threatening her that she should arrange the remaining amount of Rs.45,000/- from her parents. He used to make phone calls from the Gulf frequently reiterating the demand for the balance amount. Accused Nos.2 to 6 harassed her by beating and pressurizing her to get the amount from her parents. She was even deprived of the food. In the cross-examination she has admitted that accused No.1 had already been in abroad even prior to her marriage and he had arrived for the marriage which was held on 30.10.1998 and stayed till March, 1999 and thereafter he left for the Gulf. After the departure of accused No.1 for the Gulf in March, 1999, she has been staying with her parents. She further admitted that a settlement was reached before the Circle Inspector, wherein her father received gold ornaments and clothes, which were presented at the time of marriage, and the said settlement was dated 27.11.1999 and she has lodged the complaint on 10.12.1999. She did not make any police complaint prior to lodging of Ex.P.1. Therefore, according to P.W.1 an amount of Rs.50,000/- was demanded by the accused No.1 in order to go to the Gulf country. But admittedly he is residing in Gulf country and came back to India only for the purpose of his marriage and after staying with P.W.1 for 5 months, he left for Gulf country. P.W.2, father of P.W.1 also stated about the accused demanding Rs.50,000/- as inadequate dowry was presented at the time of marriage and brought P.W.1 to his house. When he expressed his inability to pay the said amount, accused No.1 took back P.W.1 to his house and harassed her. Thereafter, he raised Rs.5,000/- and paid the same to accused No.1 by persuading him to look after P.W.1 well. Few days thereafter, accused No.1 left for the Gulf and while leaving India, he asked him to pay the remaining amount of Rs.45,000/-. After the departure of accused No.1, accused Nos. 2 to 6 used to get together frequently and pressurize P.W.1 to bring the amount by abusing her and beating her. Whenever, P.W.1 arrived to him narrating her condition, he went and requested accused Nos.2 to 6 not to harass P.W.1, but there was no change in their attitude. He also admitted in the cross- examination about the settlement before the Circle Inspector of police and receiving of gold ornaments and clothes of P.W.1, which were presented at the time of marriage. P.W.3, who is the brother of P.W.2 also supported the version of P.W.2 and also admitted about the settlement reached before the Circle Inspector. P.W.4, co-brother of P.W.3 has stated about the mediation held by him with regard to the demand made by the accused, but whereas P.Ws.1 and 2 have not spoken about the mediation of P.W.4. Moreover, P.W.5, the investigating officer, who recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 4 has categorically stated about the omissions in their statements made before him. P.W.1 omitted to state before him that accused No.1 took her to her parental house insisting her to get Rs.50,000/- and when her parents expressed their inability, he brought her back and she was assaulted by all the accused. P.W.2 also omitted to state before the police whatever he has stated before the Court. P.W.2 further stated before him that in the month of April the accused snatched away all the gold ornaments from the person of P.W.1 with the demand to get Rs.45,000/- and necked her away from his house, which fact was not spoken by P.W.1. As per the case of the prosecution, accused No.1 has originally demanded for payment of Rs.50,000/-, accused Nos.2 to 6 have harassed the P.W.1 after departure of accused No.1 for Gulf country for getting Rs.45,000/-. As admitted by P.W.1 her husband left for Gulf Country in the March, 1999, since then she is staying with her parents. Therefore, it is evident that P.W.1 was not staying in the house of accused Nos.2 to 6 after departure of her husband. Therefore, the question of harassing by them does not arise. Moreover, a settlement was reached on 27.11.1999 between P.W.2 and the accused with regard to return of gold and clothes presented at the time of marriage to P.W.1 and at that time no complaint was lodged with regard to the alleged harassment, but only after receiving gold and clothes presented at the time of marriage to P.W.1, the present complaint was lodged on 10.12.1999 and no reasons were stated by P.W.1 as to why the complaint was not lodged prior to the said settlement. The arriving of settlement dated 27.11.1999 itself clearly shows that all the disputes between the parties were settled, and P.W.2 taken back the gold and clothes presented to P.W.1 at the time of marriage. Therefore, lodging of the complaint subsequent to the settlement shows that P.W.1 has lodged the complaint only to harass the accused No.1. The admission made by P.W.1 about her leaving the house of accused immediately after the departure of accused No.1 for Gulf country was sufficient to show that there is no harassment caused by the accused. Moreover, no specific incident was spoken by her with regard to the harassment caused by the accused except making general allegations of beating and harassing her. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has rightly held that the prosecution has failed to establish the harassment caused to P.W.1 by the appellants/accused and rightly acquitted them for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Thus, the said findings recorded by the lower Court do not warrant any interference by this Court in the appeal. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed. _______________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J 26th December, 2011 Ksp