IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.26 of 2010 BANDANA BARDHAN Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Bhola Prasad,Adv. Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal, Adv. For the respondents/O.P.Nos. 2 to 5: Kusumlata Das,Adv. For the State: Ajay Mishra, A.P.P. ------------ 5. 14.12.2010 Heard this application at the stage of admission. This application is for leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal as passed in judgment dated 8.2.2010 of the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.2, Bhagalpur passed in Cr. Appeal No. 18 of 2007 whereby the conviction of the O.P. Nos. 2 to 5 as awarded under judgment dated 12.2.2007 of the 1st Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur as passed under complaint case No. 566 of 1997/Tr. No. 598 of 2007 was set aside and O.P. Nos. 2 to 5 were acquitted of the charges. The complainant’s case was that she was married to Niranjan Kumar (who was not tried by the trial court and his case stood separated from the O.P. Nos.2 to 5) and thereafter, she went her Sasural situated in village Bahachauk. It was further case that after some time the complainant went with her husband (Niranjan Kumar) to Nagpur where he was running an electronics shop. The complainant has alleged that her husband and the in-laws were demanding Rs. 50000/- as dowry but due to non-fulfillment of the demand, she was tortured and physically assaulted. The complainant including herself examined five material 2 witnesses to prove the allegation. P.W.1 Sudhir Prasad Singh was the brother of the complainant who admitted in his evidence that O.P. Nos. 4 and 5 namely, Suma Devi and Ishwari Mandal, mother-in-law and father-in- law of the complainant are working as teachers at Lakhisarai and they are also residing there. He also deposed that the marriage was solemnized in February, 1995 and in the same year Niranjan Kumar shifted to Nagpur where he was running electronics goods shop. This witness gave a general and omnibus statement about the torture and harassment done to the complainant at the hands of the O.P. Nos. 2 to 5. At para-2 the P.W.2 Jai Prakash Singh who was a neighbour of the complainant’s father, stated that the complainant’s husband Niranjan Kumar was running an electronic goods shop at Nagpur. He also stated that he learnt about the occurrence from the complainant. P.W. 3 Subodh Kumar Singh, cousin of the complainant stated similarly that the complainant’s husband had shifted to Nagpur in the months of June- July, 1995 and he stated about the torture and harassment at the hands of the husband (Niranjan Kuamr). He also deposed that at paragraph-6 that the physical assault was caused to the complainant at Nagpur and that in the Sasural village any assault had not been caused on her. P.W. 4 Harshbardhan Singh, father of the complainant also admitted at para-7 of his evidence that marriage was solemnized in February, 1995 and in the months of May-June the husband took the complainant to Nagpur. He also deposed that the complainant had 3 informed him from Nagpur that her husband was demanding Rs. 50000/- as dowry. He also stated at para-9 of his evidence that the complainant had sent him three letters regarding the occurrence from Nagpur stating about the torture and harassment to her. The P.W.5 Bandana Bhardan, the complainant herself had deposed that in the categorical terms at para-2 of her evidence that her husband had threatened to desert her and that he used to physically assault her by gagging her mouth with a cloth. She stated that her husband had taken her to Nagpur and he had assaulted her there. So far the assault at the hands of the other O.Ps. namely, 2 to 5 is concerned, the complainant gave a general and omnibus statement in that regard. It has also come in the evidence that in order to ease out the situation, the complainant’s father was sending money order for a sum of Rs. 500/- for three months and the money order receipt was exhibited as 2 series. But during trial it was not shown as to where the money was received. Learned counsel for the O.Ps. submitted that money was sent at Nagpur. Learned counsel for the O.Ps. also pointed out that P.W..1, the complainant’s brother has deposed at para-4 of his evidence that the O.Ps. Ishwari Mandal and Suma Devi, the father-in- law and mother-in-law of the complaint were working as teachers at Lakhisarai and they were living there. Referring to the evidence, learned counsel for the O.Ps. submitted that the O.P.s Ishwari Mandal and Suma Devi live at Lakhisarai where they are working as teachers and they are not living at Nagpur or at other place where torture and harassment to the complainant is alleged to have been caused. 4 The learned trial court had considered the evidence produced by the complainant and had recorded the judgment of conviction but considering the evidence of the witnesses as above and the other facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge- cum-Fast Track Court No.2, at Bhagalpur came to find that so far the O.P. Nos. 2 to 5 are concerned, the evidence against them was not specific but of general and omnibus nature. It was also submitted that the husband against whom there was specific allegation and some evidence were led was not tried inasmuch as his trial had been separated due to his absence. Thus finding paucity or insufficiency of evidence as regard O.P. Nos. 2 to 5, the learned Lower Appellate Court under his impugned judgment dated 8th February, 2010 acquitted the O.P. Nos. 2 to 5 of the charge under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above and also considering the order of the learned trial court and Lower Appellate Court, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the judgment. Thus, finding no merit in this application, it is dismissed at the stage of admission. (C. M. Prasad, J.) Ravi/-