SA/1311/2006 of SHYAMLAL Vs MAIYADEEN on 1 July 2009

Arguments

Criminal Revision No.1311 / 2006.

01/08/2014.

Shri Prashant Shrivas, Learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Rohani Prasad Tiwari, PP for the respondent no. 5 / State.

This criminal revision under section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C.has been filed by the applicant / complainant against the judgment ofacquittal dated 19-7-2006 passed in Criminal Case No. 454/2002 bylearned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panna (MP).

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learnedtrial court is not justified in acquitting the respondents / accused from thecharges of offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC inspite ofample evidence regarding demand of dowry and harassment forfulfillment of demand of dowry.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention towards thestatement of Complainant Smt. Satyabhama Chourasiya (PW-3) and herfather Ramkishore (PW-1) and her brother Manoj (PW-2). But, onperusal of the impugned judgment it is found that the evidence regardingbeating complainant is contradictory and it is an admitted fact that thehusband of the complainant is less educated than the complainant andalso unemployed while the complainant is employed under the EducationGuarantee Scheme and the complaint has been lodged after thehusband filed a suit for divorce. It is alleged in the report that thecomplainant was beaten on 13.6.2002 and the report was lodged on14.6.2002 but there is no evidence of any injury over the body of thecomplainant. The allegation of demand of Rs.50,000/- as dowry has alsonot been proved. On the other hand, it has been admitted that at the timeof marriage, no dowry was demanded and marriage was performedtwice, firstly under the scheme of the Chief Minister for marriage andthereafter, according to custom prevailing in their caste and both thetimes, there is no evidence that the dowry was demanded by any of the accused. Learned trial court has further held that complainantSatyabhama has tried to suppress the fact. Therefore, on the basis ofunreliable evidence, the learned trial court is justified in passing theimpugned judgment of acquittal which needs no interference under therevisional jurisdiction. Therefore, the revision is dismissed.

Parouha/-

(Anil Sharma)

Judge