IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.37 of 2011 Shobha Devi Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 2/ 25.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner who seeks special leave of this Court to appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura in Complaint Case no. 348 C of 2006 / Trial No. 855 of 2011. P.W. 4, admittedly, was married to D.W. 1, who was the son of respondent Kedar Prasad and Sharda Devi. The marriage was solemnized in the year 1997 and as per the complaint petition, the husband was unemployed and, as such, he was often humiliated by his parents and as such, he used to live away from his wife for earning livelihood. It is alleged that the lady was ill treated and tortured so as to force her to abandon the matrimonial home. Besides, it was alleged, the respondents were asking the lady to bring rupees fifty thousand cash. It is stated that the lady had two sons aged seven years and five years and in spite of that the torture against the lady was unabated. The allegation further was that on the day the complaint petition was being filed, husband of the lady was in prison and, as such, on 7.12.2006 the respondents came inside the room in which the lady was sleeping and without there being any rhyme or reason, assaulted her badly and turned her out of her matrimonial home after depriving her of belongings valued at rupees fifty thousand. 2 It was stated by the lady that her children raised hue and cry and, as such, persons of the neighbourhood came and saved her. During the course of trial, four witnesses were examined by the complainant including herself. P.W. 1 was the brother of one of the respondents, namely, Kedar Prasad. The evidence of P.W. 1 has been discarded by the court below on the ground that he does not appear coming to support the truth because of a couple of reasons. One of the reasons which the court below has pointed out in his judgment is that the relationship between respondent Kedar Prasad and P.W. 1 was quite strained so much so that he was probably instigating the lady to foist a false case upon the respondents. The reason behind P.W. 1 instigating the complainant was also perceived by the court below that after retirement of respondent Kedar Prasad, he got retirement benefits and P.W. 1 being his full brother, wanted some money to be shared, which was not done by Kedar Prasad. As regards P.W. 2, his evidence has been discarded by the court below on account of being hear say. On perusal of that part of the discussion in the lower court records, I am also convinced that P.W. 2 could not be an eye witness. P.W. 3’s evidence has been discarded similarly on same reasoning and as regards complainant, she has also not been believed on many reasons, principally, on one reason that she was very very non-specific in deposition as regards the details of torture. Court below was not only discarding the evidence of the prosecution witnesses but was also considering the 3 evidence of the husband, who was examined as D.W. 1 and has castigated the allegations of the complainant against his parents by stating that nothing had really happened as was alleged by the lady. After having perused the discussion of evidence, which was made by the learned trail magistrate while discussion the individual evidence as also the impact thereof as may appear from paragraph 7, I am also convinced that the view taken by the court below was also a possible view, considering which, I do not find any perversity in the judgment. The application seeking special leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal is dismissed. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)