BHURIYA BEE Vs. STATE OF MP AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application has been filed by the complainant against the judgment of absolvitur passed on 19.9.2011 by learned appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.92/2011, setting aside the judgment dated 30.3.2011 passed in Criminal Case No. 136/2000, acquitted the respondents No.2 and 3 from the charge under Section 498-A of IPC.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that complainant Bhuriya Bee married the respondent No.2 on 27.5.1998. The respondent No.3 is the father-in-law of the complainant/applicant. In the month of April 1999 the parents of respondent No.2 went to bring the applicant and the applicant was residing in her matrimonial house. In the month of August 1999, applicant delivered a child, who died immediately after birth. The inlaws of the applicant used to make allegation against the applicant that the child was not born out of wedlock of applicant and respondent No.2-Imam Khan and due to this reason the respondents/accused used to torture her and behaved with cruelty, demanded dowry and they showed the door. Thereafter the applicant resided with her father but she was not given any maintenance and tried to perform second marriage and thereby the respondents continued torturing the applicant mentally and physically. The complainant submitted a written report before Police Station Murwas, District Vidisha, on the basis of which the said Police Station registered FIR at Crime No. 40/2000. During investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded, the respondents/accused were arrested. After investigation, challan was filed before the concerned Court.

(3.) The trial Court after framing of charge and recording of evidence convicted the respondents No.2 and 3 of the offences under Section 498-A of IPC. Against which the respondents preferred an appeal before the Court of Session, which was allowed by the impugned judgment and the respondents were acquitted of the aforesaid charges. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the complainant has preferred the instant revision before this Court.