IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA NO.21 OF 2009 RAM AUTAR SAH, SON OF MAUZE LAL SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KAURA HARSANSH, POLICE STATION PERSOUNEE, DISTRICT SITAMARHI VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MANOJ SAH, SON OF DHANAI SAH 3. YOGENDRA SAH, SON OF DHANAI SAH 4. DHANAI SAH, SON OF LATE THAGA SAH 5. ANANDI DEVI, WIFE OF YOGENDRA SAH 6. BINDA SAH, SON OF DHANAI SAH 7. SUDAMA DEVI, WIFE OF BINDA SAH 8. SUGIA DEVI, WIFE OF DHANAI SAH 2 TO 8 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SANAUL HATHSAR NAYA TOLA, POLICE STATION PURNAHIA, DISTRICT SHEOHAR ………………………………………………ACCUSED/OPPOSITE PARTIES. ********** 5 06/05/2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Parties. This application has been filed against the order of acquittal. The offences alleged are under Sections 304B & 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The occurrence is said to have taken place in the night of 12th March, 2001. It is alleged that the victim lady was killed and her body was disposed of by the husband and others without informing the informant. Learned Counsel submits that the Trial Court has not considered the evidence of the witnesses in the right perspective and has wrongly acquitted the Opposite Parties. 2 On perusal of the judgment, I find that the Trial Court has dealt with the evidence of each and every witness and has given reasons for rejecting the evidence. In this case, four witnesses have also been examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties to show that the deceased was suffering from diarrhea and she was treated as Primary Health Centre at Purnahia, and thereafter she was referred to Sitamarhi. It has also transpired that the father of the deceased was present at the time of cremation of the deceased. The main thrust of the arguments is that `BIDAI’ had taken place three months prior to the occurrence and it is also alleged that there was a demand of dowry. PW 2 and 8 who are the independent witnesses, who had informed the father of the deceased, have denied that they had given information regarding the murder of the deceased. As far as the demand of dowry is concerned, there is hardly any evidenced that has come on record as to when and how the demand was made. It has also been brought to the notice of the Court by learned Counsel for the petitioner that earlier a case under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code was filed by the deceased which was compromised and as such it is submitted that the 3 death of the deceased is highly suspicious. On the other hand, the Trial Court has also considered this aspect of the matter and stated that infact the witnesses have disclosed that there was no foul play and the deceased died due to diarrhea which has been substantiated by the evidence led on behalf of the Opposite Parties. Considering all aspects, I do not find any perversity in the reasons given by the Trial Court in acquitting the Opposite Parties and as such this SLA is dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )