ARCHANA SEN Vs. PAPPU @ SATISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on admission.

(2.) After considering the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the learned Sessions Judge has appreciated the evidence in a detailed manner. He created five parts of the various incidents and discussed for each part and he found the testimony of the complainant was not believable. She did not give any specific date when she was sent to her father's house or she was admitted in the hospital when her husband put his hands inside her uterus. It was mentioned by the learned Sessions Judge that no such complaint was made by the complainant to the treating doctor and in her case diary statement she has accepted that her husband and all the accused persons were present in the hospital and thereafter the learned Sessions Judge found that the allegations of mishandling of uterus was incorrect.

(3.) The complainant gave a contradictory statement relating to the various facts. Sometimes she was telling that she was sent to her parents house for demand of some amount and colour T.V. etc. whereas some time she had told that she was not sent to her parents house because of that demand. She did not give any exact date on which she was lastly sent to the parents house. However, according to her allegations, it appears that she delivered the second child on 28.2.1990 who could not survive and she accepted in her statement that she was residing with her father since last six years and therefore, it is apparent that she was residing with her father since the year 1990 whereas she had lodged an FIR on 8.8.1991. No reason has been shown as to why she had not lodged the FIR earlier to that period. When a mishandling to her uterus was caused and she aborted then it was for her to lodge an FIR immediately. In the entire story she never lodged any FIR against the accused persons. No medical report is submitted to confirm the allegations made by the complainant. On the contrary if the statement of the complainant is perused then a lot of contradiction was recorded by the defence Counsel with her case diary statement Ex.D/3.