(^ri UTini >T f»n*r.» '.y- A,¥ni <§^i%i ,?^->.?s. ffis^ on'Dle snrt diustic< •£^£S.i^£. State ofM.P. (now State ofC.G. Dhainoodas axid others. Post for iudgment on l? .09.200' Sd/- R-L. Jhanwar Judge r»-^l "PC' iiTnT- 'UI Die sni'i State of-M.P. (Now C.G.j 1 Dharaoodas, aged aboiit 49 yeai's, S/'o Nimialdas, Occupation- Service 2 Rambai, agefl about 45 years, W/o Dhainoodas, Occupation- Agriculture 3 Ranieshwar Das, aged 24 years, s/o Dhamoodas, Occupation Student AU R/o Bharotal, Kurabclihar, P.S. Kosamaada, Tab. Katghora, District Bilaspur(M.P.) Shri Pradeep Sin.gh, Paiiel Law,'er for tlie State/a Sint. Seeina Singh, counsel &r the respondeQts. (Delivered on\ 5'.09.2009) The State/s.ppeUaiit has prefeiTed fhis appeal agauist flie judgEieat of acquittal dated 27.6.1991 delivered ia Criminal Case No. ?\To.994/88, vvhereby, tlie leanied Jiidicial Magistrate F'irst Class, Katghora had acquitted fh.e accused/respondents of fhe charge uiider Section 498-A oftlie IPC. 2. Brieffacts oftlie case ai'e tliat the coinplaiiiant Puranbaiwas r'larried to respondent No.3- Rameshwai- Das iti the yesr 1987. Respoiidents No. l & 2 are in-laws ofthe coinplaiaaiit. Accordiu^ to tlT.e F'.I.R... one Rico watch, SUver PaziaJ of 26 tola aad other articles like golden latkarL, tops {kaan ki phuSJf), wristeratch etc. were giveii to lier iii tlie irtaniage. After inarriage, the respondents %. te&:<< stsrted deia.anding some goMen oraaraents aa.d riiotorcycle froni the parents of tlie com.plainaist. Parents of the complahiant were unable to fcISU. the deiaaud of the respondents, thercfore, fhe cotts.olaiiiaj.it was subiected to cruelty b-v tliem.. She was not aliowecl to go out of tlie house. Anyliow; fhe coaiplain.airt. uifoniied her parents regardiiig this as.d her father caine fhere and brought her to iD.atemal houie at Bharotal, Thereafter, report Ex. P/ 2 was lodged in the Po!ice statfon Kosmanda and investigation took place, 3. After coiupletion of the mvestigatiDn chaige sheet was fited in the Coui-t of J.M.F.C., Katghora under Section 498-A of the I?C. The Jxidicial Magistrate First Qass fi~aiaed charRe and read over and explamed to the n°spond<°nts, vAo a'bjured the guilt aad tlieir defence was that fb.ey have been falsely impUcated ia the case. 4. The leanied J.M.F.C. after appreciation of the evideace available on record and hearing counsel for the parties, had acquitted tlie accused/respondents of tlie charge under Section 498-AoffbeIPC. ! have he.aTd. le.amed couiisel for the parties at lengtli aad have perused tlie record, Tae reasons acquitting fhe respondeuts of tlie charge under Section 498A of tlie I.P.C. recorded by the Court below are fhat no independent witaess was produced by the prosecution aild tha.t tb.ere are contradic'tioiis iii tlie staterueuts of fhe complamant Pui-aa Bai P.W.l, Ram. Bai P.W.2 arid ShEmkar Das P.W.3. Man.gal Singh P.W.4 aad Sukhni Bai P.W.7 also did uot support tlie statements of tlie above witaesses. Puraii Bai P.W.l stated that after niarriage wlien sbe came to his niatrim.onial home; his husband aiid in-laws stai-ted hai'assing and beatmg the coirtp'ainant for bruigiiig niore dowiy froai her m.ateraal horae. In her cross-exa.m.'uiation., sbe stated fhat when her fafher caiae to malimionial hojae, t-he respondents never deniaxided m.0tor cycle or golden riag. !t appears that aft.er "Gaund' wben she retuined to lier laiati-imonial lioiae she. never reported aboiit beiae beaten or deniand for dowry by the respondents aad. she did not state th.is fact to any of tier neighbours and reuiam.ed silent. She did not even tiy to intimate her fafher about the dein.aud for dowry by fhe respondents despite tlie fact fhat slie is a Uterate aiid should have sent iafoTination to her fa'th.er about fhe denieai-ior of her ia-laws and husband. She further deposed tiiat her intiinacv v<ith her sister-in-law (;zanac^ vfas also good. 6. So far as the testiinoBy of Rama Bai P.W.2, she only statec that piiran Bai P.W. 1 told her fhat her in-laws aad husbaiid si.ibjected the coraplai&artt to cruelt^' by deiaaadiiig goldea riag, bike etc. In lier cross-exaaiination, she deposed fhat at fhe time wl-i.en fh.e coinplauiant (Purau Bai) told deniaiid for dowiy by the respondents, there was nobody aiid she vvas not in a position to state as to how inuch the respondents denian.ded dowiy from. Puran Bai or fhe raaiiner in which fhe coiaplalnaut was beaten by fae responclents. Shaakar Das P.W.3, fatlier offhe coBiplaiTi.aiit - PUI-EUI Bai, stated fhat his daughter told bim fhat for not bnnguig adequate dowiy i.e. golden nxig, niotorcycle and inoney, the l-espoadents used to harass ttie coiaplauiaDt aiid beat lier. Thereafter, he lodged tlie written report Ex.P. 1 in. police station, on fbe basis ofwhich P.I.R. was lodged. In his cross-exatuuiation, it is clear fhat at tlie ti-me of mLaniage neither respoudent No.l aor respondent No,3 deuiaaded golden riiig aud luotorcycle and were reluctaut to acceut them. He also stated in. cross-e.xaniination fhat whenever be went to his daugliters inatruiionial no such discussion regarding dem.aiid for dowiy arose. In view of fhe above testui.iony, it is clear tiiat only these persous are fhe prosecution witaesses aiid were unable to state on which occasion tlie '.'espondents deiuaLnded dowry aad beaten tjie coiupledaaiit - Purau Bai. Even ui their cross-examination, fhese witaesses have acceoted tliat no demand for dowrv was deiaauded bv fhe u *~NS \..^} -t respondents. Independeiit witnesses Sukhni Bai F.W.7 and Maiigal Siiigh P.W.4 aiso did not support flieir testimony, 7. In this view of the laatter, tlie prosecution has totaJLly faited t.o prove its case beyoud reasonable doubt aiid has also failed to 'bring hoiae tlie respondents guilty uiider Sectkiu 498A of fhe I. P, C. lu niy considered vrew that fhe acqiiittal of the respoadents under Section 498A ofthe I.P.C. is weU inerited and fhe finding acquittis.g the i-espondents of the charge under Section 498A of tiie I.P.C. recorde.d by the Co'urt below is based on the evidence adduced on recora. 8. Having thus considereci I arui offhe cousidered view tliat the reasous given by tlie Judicial Magistra.te First Class, Katgbora, are based oa tbe evidence add-aced on record. I firid tliat there is no infiraaity or luaiiifest error iil ttie impugned judgiuent. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed while aJBrmiiig the unpugaed iudgGieat deUvered on 27.06.1991. ^^^-'- - -^ -'7' - ' sd'-^.», ' R.l.. an^ JudS®