STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. TAHSILDAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT appeal is preferred by the State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment delivered by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge Bhind, (M.P.) on 11/2/200 in S.T. No. 99/99, acquitting the present respondents of the offences punishable under sections 304B, 498A, 302 and 201 of I.P.C.

(2.) FACTS in short as came out from the evidence led before the trial court, which are just necessary for the disposal of the appeal are that Arun Kumari @ Tori (since deceased), daughter of Ramadhar (PW -5) was married with the respondent No. 1 -Tahsildar Singh, prior to three years. It is alleged that after the marriage of his daughter, her husband and the members from in law's side started raising illegal demand of motorcycle and they used to harass and torture her. On 8/7/98 when Sadhu Singh @ Abhilakh Singh (PW -1), cousin brother of the deceased went to see Munna Master and passed through the way of the house of accused Babbu Singh then he heard scrimmage from inside the house and saw that Tahsildar was beating his sister with some iron pipe and she was caught hold by sister -in -law (Jethani) and mother -in -law of the deceased. Then the witness came back to his home and informed the family members of the deceased. Thereafter, Ramadhar (PW -5), the father of the deceased rushed to the village with his relations and was apprised by the persons of the locality about the death of his daughter. On the report, a Crime No. 208/98 was registered against the accused -persons for committing offence under sections 304B and 201 read with section 34 of I.P.C. After investigation, the charge -sheet was filed and on committal the sessions trial was conducted against the accused. After recording the evidence the learned trial Judge acquitted the present accused by the impugned judgment, hence this appeal is before us.

(3.) AFTER taking into consideration the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as defence, the learned trial court held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents/accused for the commission of the alleged offences, hence, this appeal.