IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.775 of 2008 Sangita Devi, wife of Murlidhar Thakur @ Sanjay Thakur, resident of village-Kapilpur, P.S.-Kanti (Panapur O.P.), District- Muzaffarpur. ………….Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Murlidhar Thakur @ Sanjay Thakur, son of Bindeshwar Thakur. 3. Hridya Devi, wife of Bindeshwar Thakur. 4. Bindeshwar Thakur, son of Late Ram Sevak Thakur. 5. Nilam Devi, daughter of Bindeshwar Thakur. 6. Baleshwar Thakur, son of Late Ram Sevak Thakur. (All are residents of village-Kabilpur, P.S.-Kanti (Panapur O.P.), District- Muzaffarpur) …..Opposite Parties. ----------- 6. 20.10.2011 The complainant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 2.06.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Muzaffarpur in G.R. No.1593 of 2004, Trial No.2017 of 2008 by which the accused opposite party nos. 3 to 6 have been acquitted for the charge under Section 498A of the I.P.C. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant-petitioner was married to the accused Murlidhar Thakur @ Sanjay Thakur on 14.05.2003. Thereafter, she went to her matrimonial home. On 17.05.2003, the accused persons demanded ornaments and 2 Rs.25,000/- as dowry. After getting information, her father came to her matrimonial home on 20.06.2003 and showed his inability to meet their demand, but the accused did not stop and threatened that they would get her husband remarried. Thereafter, she was tortured by the accused. She used to give the information about her torture to her father by letters. There was also a Panchayati. Even thereafter on 5.08.2004 demands of dowry was made and on 2.09.2004, they tried to kill her. After getting information, her father took her to his house on 3.09.2004. On 6.09.2004, a complaint petition was filed. It was sent to the police station. Thereafter Kanti P.S. Case No.193/2004 was instituted against all the accused under Section 498A. After inquiry, charge-sheet was submitted under Section 498A of the I.P.C. After the trial, the learned Magistrate held that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused were acquitted. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned trial court has overlooked the material evidence. The prescription of the doctor is not admissible in law as evidence unless the doctor is examined. 3 The learned counsel for the State has submitted that the prosecution as well as the defence has produced the evidence oral and documentary and defence of the accused is that the Sangita was married to Sanjay Thakur against his will. Sanjay was suffering from epilepsy and after knowing this illness; she herself went to her father’s house leaving her husband and later on at the instigation of others has filed the case which stands proved by Exhibit- C. The prosecution has examined six witnesses, out of them, two are outsiders and remaining are interested witnesses. The I.O. has not been examined. P.W.5 Bhola Das has stated that Harishchandra Thakur has married his daughter with Murlidhar Thakur by using force. There was no Barat nor any demand of dowry was made. Murlidhar Thakur was suffering from Mirgi. Sangita (petitioner) disliked Murlidhar Thakur and she got the marriage dissolved. P.W.6 Basant Sahni also stated that the divorce case is going on in which he is opposite party no.2. After considering the evidence of both the parties, the learned trial court has passed this judgment and order and no interference is required by this Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner 4 and the learned counsel for the State, it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the State is correct. There is documentary evidence to show that Murlidhar Thakur @ Sanjay Thakur, husband of the petitioner was suffering from epilepsy and there was also a divorce case pending in the family court. The learned Magistrate has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)