STATE OF M P Vs. SONU @ RAJKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. the applicant/State has prayed for grant to leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 23.05.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar in Criminal Appeal No.62/2012 acquitting the accused from offence under Section 498(A) of the IPC.

(2.) Briefly stated of the prosecution case is that on 04.07.2010 at 3:00 pm Police Thana Sagur received a complaint from the complainant Uma, who along with her father registered an FIR that she was married to one Sonu @ Rajkumar one year prior of the incident and initially she was treated properly by her husband and father -in -law Bharatsingh. However thereafter, along with father -in -law her brother -in -law Govind started taunting her and asked for dowry. They used to partake alcohol and also physically assaulted her numbers of times, they asked for 25 tolas of gold and one day drove her away from the matrimonial home. Her father -in -law Bharat Singh had escorted her to her parents' house one and half months prior to filing the FIR since then she was living with her parents. On the date of incident she had gone to her matrimonial home along with her father Bhagvan Singh when they pushed her away and demanded 25 tolas of gold and told that if she insisted coming back inside without the gold they would kill her. After registering of the FIR and recording of the statements of witnesses the matter was put up before the Judicial Magistrate, Dhar, who committed the accused the trial for offence under Sections 498 -A, 323 and 506 of the IPC.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant/State has vehemently urged the fact that the trial Court had properly acquitted the accused only from offence u/Ss.323 & 506 of the IPC and whereas the Appellate Court had erred in acquitting the accused from all the offences. Counsel stated that there was sufficient evidence on record in the evidence of Mangubai PW.2 the mother of the complainant and the prosecutrix has also categorically stated that 25 tolas of gold was demanded; then Premsingh PW.3 and Uma PW.1 have categorically stated that her in -laws treated the prosecutrix with cruelty and had driven her out of matrimonial home demanding that she fetch 25 tolas of gold. The prosecutrix complainant belongs to a poor family, who could not afford 25 tolas of gold. Moreover Bhagwansingh PW.4 the father of the prosecutrix has also stated that 25 tolas of gold was demanded by in -laws, who often beat her because they (her parents) were unable to provide the demand of dowry. Under the circumstances, Counsel submitted that the case was fully made out for offence and both the Courts below had erred in acquitting the accused. He prayed for leave to file appeal.