TARUNA MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision application has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of acquittal dated 9.7.1996 passed by S.D.J.M., Jamshedpur in G.R. No. 51 of 1992/T.R. No. 196 of 1994 by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the opposite party Nos. 2 to 6.

(2.) Short facts relating to the prosecution case is that the petitioner Taruna Mishra was married with the opposite party No. 2, Biriay Kumar Mishra and the marriage was solemnised on 3.6.1991 in accordance with Hindu rights. After the marriage the informant/petitioner went to her Sasural and after some time on 9.11.1991 the opposite party No. 2, Binay Kumar Mishra, C.K. Jha and Sanjeeb Jha told her to bring a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from her parents, if at all she wants to reside in this, house. It is further alleged that they took the petitioner to her Nanihar and left her there. The petitioner had arranged for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and for that her parents prepared a Bank Draft and the same was. given to the opposite parties. After given this amount she Was kept for some time in the house but again she was being ill-treated and tortured and she also came to know that the opposite party No. 2 was married previously and he had already two children living at that time out of the wedlock of her husband and his first wife. The petitioner lodged the first information report at the police station when she came to know about this matter and the police investigated into the case and submitted charge-sheet under Sections 498A/420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Charges were also framed against the accused persons arid thereafter witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and defence but the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused persons/opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 by the impugned judgment against which this revision lies.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate acquitted the opposite parties/accused persons without appreciating the evidence on record properly as even though it is an admitted case that the marriage has taken place and the opposite party No. 2 was married from before and at that time he had already got two children out of the said wedlock but even then the marriage of the petitioner with opposite party No. 2 was solemnised by opposite party No. 2 knowingly. It is further argued that there was a demand of Rs, 1,00,000/- which was also paid and later on the petitioner came to know about first marriage of opposite party No. 2 and as such the opposite party No. 2 cheated the petitioner on false pretext. It is also submitted that the learned Magistrate relied upon the defence Witnesses who are own relatives of the accused persons.