T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all, four accused namely Bhim Murmu son of Sri Mangal Murmu, Mangla Murmu son of late Bhim Murmu, Jhari Murmu wife of Sri Mangla Murmu and Hisi Murmu daughter of Sri Mangal Murmu, were put on trial in a complaint filed by the appellant Smt.Laxmi Mani Murmu wife of Shri Bhim Chandra Murmu for the offences punishable under section 498-A and 323 I.P.C. They earned acquittal, vide impugned judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ghatsila dated 23.02.2001, aggrieved thereof, the complainant filed the instant appeal, in which leave to appeal was granted by the Court, vide order dated 14th June, 2001.

(2.) When the instant appeal was taken on the last date of hearing i.e. 4th August, 2016, none appeared for the complainant-appellant, so is the position even today. At the very outset, Mrs. Sneh Singh appearing for the respondents made a statement at the Bar that out of four acquitted respondent-accused, Bhim Murmu son of Sri Mangal Murmu, Mangla Murmu son of late Bhim Murmu and Jhari Murmu wife of Sri Mangla Murmu have since died. The factum of death of these three persons has been confirmed by Mr.Pankaj Kumar. He also places on record the report of S.H.O of the police station and the same be tagged at its proper place. The instant appeal thus abates qua Bhim Murmu, Mangla Murmu and Jhari Murmu and survives qua Hisi Murmu daughter of Sri Mangal Murmu and sister of Bhim Murmu, husband of the complainant-appellant.

(3.) Mrs. Sneh Singh submitted that there appears to be general allegation against all the four accused of making demand of dowry. Learned counsel submitted that there was no specific demand alleged against Hisi Murmu. It is submitted that when CW5, Laxmi Mani Murmu, complainant-appellant stepped into the witness box, she stated that respondent-accused Hisi Murmu made demand of money whereas, that was never the case of the complainant-appellant set up in the initial complaint and that all the four respondent-accused were roped in with general allegation of demand of dowry. Learned counsel thus vehemently contended that in the flashback of the fact that the husband of the complainant-appellant and her parents-in-law having already died and there being general allegation levelled against the only surviving respondent-accused, Hisi Murmu, the case of the complainant-appellant cannot be said to be proved to the hilt for the purposes of holding her guilty for the charges under section 498-A and 323 I.P.C. She thus prays for confirming the impugned judgment of acquittal.