AYESHA BI Vs. MAQSOOD KHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/complainant has filed this Revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of acquittal of respondents dated 1.5.2015 by 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar for the offence punishable under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 498-A read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, arising out of judgment dated 14.3.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class in Criminal Case No. 6105/2011; whereby, the learned Trial Judge has acquitted the respondents/accused Nos. 1 to 3 under Section 498- A read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) Prosecution case in nutshell is that complainant Ayesha Bi was married to Maqsood Khan, respondent/accused No. 1. Just after six days of marriage, the respondent/accused Nos. 1 to 3 started demanding dowry and torturing physically and mentally the petitioner/complainant. Respondents/accused Nos. 1 to 3 subjected the applicant to cruelty even during her pregnancy and forced her for abortion. Petitioner/complainant filed an F.I.R on 22.12.2011 against the respondent/accused Nos. 1 to 3. The Police authority on 28.12.2011 filed a charge sheet against respondent/accused Nos. 1 to 3 for offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned Trial Judge after examining the evidence on record acquitted the respondents/accused Nos. 1 to 3 vide judgment dated 14.3.2014. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 14.3.2014; the complainant/petitioner had challenged the order of acquittal before the learned Lower Appellate Court. The learned Lower Appellate Court upholding the acquittal of the respondents/accused held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

(3.) According to petitioner/complainant both the learned Courts below have committed grave error of law in not relying upon the un-rebutted testimony of complainant Ayesha Bi (PW 1), Irfan (PW 2) Mumtaz (PW 3) and Rizwan (PW 6). The defence witnesses Mukesh (DW 1) and Gulzar (DW 2) are interested witnesses and they have testified the defence story due to ulterior motives before the Courts below. A bare perusal of testimony of Ayesha Bi (PW 1) leaves no room for doubt that the complainant was not only treated with cruelty, but she was brutally assaulted and manhandled. A bare perusal of testimony of Mohd. Irfan (PW 2) leaves no room of doubt that on 28.8.2010 when he had visited the complainant he had seen numerous injuries on various parts of the body of the complainant whereafter she was taken to the Hospital in Bhopal. Both the learned Courts below have grossly erred in putting undue emphasis on the delay in lodging the F.I.R, even though, it is well known fact that a girl tends to endure to the maximum extent possible and only when the pain and agony becomes unbearable, a complaint is lodged to the Police and in pursuance to the same a written complaint dated 10.12.2011 was registered by the complainant before Mahila Thana, Police. Learned Lower Appellate Court erred in law and also on facts in not considering the documents submitted by the petitioner/complainant under Section 391 Cr.P.C., 1973 Learned Lower Appellate Court failed to consider the fact that the respondent/accused No. 1 already had two children from his first wife and was forcing the applicant/complainant to abort her child as he was not willing to have another child. So applicant/complainant prays to convict respondent Nos. 1 to 3 under Section 498 A, 34 of I.P.C and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.