HARI RAM Vs. BADARI PRASHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS Revision application is filed by the original complainant, against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin in respect of offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306/34 of IPC. The prosecution case, is that, on the night between 16th and 17th

(3.) IN the first place, the trial Court discarded the evidence of PWs-1, 6 and 7 on the ground that they introduced a new case whilst deposing before the Court. In that, in the statement recorded during investigation, Ext.PW-1/A, no disclosure was made by these witnesses that they had received telephone call from Tara Devi on 16th February, 2004 complaining about beating by her husband and in-laws. The Court then proceeded to examine the defence version that the father of deceased Tara Devi was keen that Badri Prashad, husband of Tara Devi, should settle in his house and look after their property. However, as Badari Prashad refused to do so, out of vengeance, Tara Devi reacted aggressively resulting in the incident in question. The trial Court then, after analyzing the statements of PWs 2 and 3, opined that it was apparent that the accused never harassed or tortured Tara Devi, whereas Tara Devi was a quarrelsome lady and was of jealous and obstinate nature. She was annoyed with Badari Prashad having declined to settle down in the house of her parents and also because Badari Prashad was extending financial support and help to his brother and sister- in-law at Jammu. The trial Court then, relying on the statement Ext.DB of Smt.Laxmi Devi (sister of deceased Tara Devi), recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., noted that during the night of 16th February, 2004, Narayanu Ram had requested Laxmi Devi to come to his house as Tara Devi was quarreling with him. That fact is corroborated from the evidence of DW-1 Sohan Lal. Taking overall view of the mater, the trial Court opined that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused. This finding recorded by the trial Court is subject matter of challenge in the present revision application.