SADHNA YADAV Vs. DEVENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has preferred the present revision being aggrieved with the judgment dated 29.7.1999 passed by the learned JMFC, Jabalpur in criminal case No.76/1987, whereby the respondents No.1 to 3 were acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.

(2.) The facts of the case, in short, are that, the applicant Sadhna Yadav (P.W.1) had lodged a typed FIR, Ex.P/1 against the respondents No.1 to 3 on 19.6.1987 to S.P., Jabalpur, which was ultimately marked to the Police Station Gorakhpur, District Jabalpur and case was registered at Police Station Gorakhpur, District Jabalpur. According to the applicant, her marriage took place with the respondent No.1 Mahesh on 23.6.1985. She was being tortured by the respondents No.1 to 3 for demand of dowry including a cash of Rs.10,000/-, Rajdoot motorcycle and golden bangles. She was being assaulted by her mother-inlaw and in the last 3 months, she was given food only for once in the day. On 25.5.1986, her mother-in-law took her to the house of her father by an autorickshaw and left her there, whereas all the ornaments and luggage of the applicant was kept by the respondents. Thereafter, on 7.5.1987, Kanhaiya Lal, brother-in-law of the applicant and Surendra, cousin of the applicant went to talk with the respondents but, the respondents abused them and thrown them away from their house. On 14.6.1987 again Ram Kumar, brother of the applicant, Rikhilal, brother-in-law of the applicant, cousins Surendra, Sant Lal, Subhas, Tejilal etc. went to the house of the respondents for compromise talks but, no compromise took place. On the contrary, the respondents directed them to leave the house. Ram Kumar had lodged an FIR at Police Station Gorakhpur on the same day. On the basis of the typed report lodged by the complainant, a case was registered. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed.

(3.) The respondents No.1 to 3 abjured their guilt. They did not take any specific plea in the matter. However, it was stated that it was the complainant who left the house on her own and no cruelty was done with her. However, no defence evidence was adduced.