IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.619 of 2008 USHA DEVI WIFE OF SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH, DAUGHTER OF LATE DINESH PRASAD SINGH, R/O- VILLAGE AND P.O.- JHANDAPUR, P.S.- BIHPUR, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH, SON OF DAYANAND SINGH 3. MIRA DEVI WIFE OF BINOD KUMAR SINGH 4. LALLO SINGH SON OF DAYANAND SINGH 5. BINOD KUMAR SINGH, SON OF DAYANAND SINGH 6. DAYANAND SINGH, SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER 7. SABITRI DEVI WIFE OF DAYANAND SINGH. ALL RESIDENT OF VLLAGE SISIYA, P.S.- KORHA, DISTRICT- KATIHAR. For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate For the O.P. : Mr. Surya Narain Yadav, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 6 09.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite parties. Petitioner is the complainant-informant (P.W. 4).She is aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by learned Trial Court in G.R. no. 440/2002. According to the prosecution case, the marriage was solemnised on 5.7.2000 whereafter the Gauna was performed on 13.10.2000. The complainant-informant went to the matrimonial home and stayed there for some time and returned back to Naihar. It is also the prosecution case that subsequently, she gave birth to a female child on 22.4.2002. At the time of Gauna, demand of dowry was allegedly made. It appears that the complainant-informant did not wish to go back to matrimonial home as a result whereof, the husband of the complainant had to 2 file a proceeding under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 8.7.2002. Thereafter, on 19.7.2002, the present complaint was lodged. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined 05 witnesses. Learned Trial Court on a consideration of the materials on record found that the father of the victim had played a significant role in different proceedings but he was not produced at the trial. In the backdrop of these facts emanating from record, learned Trial Court found and held as under in paragraph no. 15 : “Having made close examination of entire facts and features attached to this case this court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution case is after thought, ambiguous and not reliable. It is found that prosecution side has failed to prove the allegation of demand of dowry and harassment by specific, cogent and reliable evidence. The allegation of unchaste behaviour on the part of informant goes a long way to suggest about concoction of this sort of case. So there is preponderance of doubt in the present case. There is no specific evidence of physical violence. No evidence of medical treatment. No consistent case of assault and demand of dowry. When and where which nature of assault took place are ambiguous. When and where dowry as alleged was demanded is contradictory. I.O. ought have thrown light. Contradiction suggested. Non-examination of I.O. goes to the root. It is found fatal. No examination of father of informant who played key-role, case of defence prejudiced. Case of desertion of husband is pleaded by defence. Case of dowry demand and that of cruelty appears to be a pretence.” In my opinion, the Trial Court has taken a view which may be a probable view based on materials available on record and as such judgment and order of acquittal cannot be said to be perverse and/or perfunctory. 3 There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )