KUMARI RASHMI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The present S.L.A. seeks leave of this court to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 23.6.2010 passed by Shri Narayan Das Sharma, S.D.J.M., Siwan in Complaint Case No. 473/09/Tr. No. 3571/09/3160/2010. By the impugned judgment, the learned S.D.J.M. acquitted the respondents of charges under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(3.) Undisputedly, the complainant Kumari Rashmi was married to respondent Manoranjan Kumar Nirala on 15.4.2008 and this is also not disputed that after solemnization of marriage, the lady came to live in the house of said respondent but on account of the retirement of the father (P.W. 1) of the complainant (P.W. 2), the accused persons were demanding rupees fifty thousand and not getting it and the same being objected to by the lady complainant (P.W. 2), they put her inside a room and shut the doors and thereafter tortured her so much so that she was also asked to leave the matrimonial house. The complainant claimed that she informed her father (P.W. 1) who came and wanted to bring the respondents to reason, but that did not have any effect and again on 2.11.2008 the lady was ill-treated and tortured. The lady P.W. 2 stated that her father had already given many articles as presents at the time of marriage including the maruti car and there was nothing left with him to be given to the accused persons. On these reasonings of P.W. 2, the accused persons pointed out to the lady that the maruti car stood registered in her name and that should be transferred in the name of Manoranjan Kumar Nirala and, accordingly, she was being pressured to execute a sale letter in favour of her husband. Lastly, they stopped her meals, as a result of which she came back to her parents' house. On 15.2.2009 and onwards the father of the complainant started receiving the threats of being killed from the respondents and they refused to give the dowry articles which were given to her by her father. Complaints were also lodged about the conduct of Manoranjan Kumar Nirala to his superior controlling officers, but to no effect and, lastly, it was found out that the said accused was never employed in the office and he had cheated the lady and her father by telling them that he was employed. In fact, he had never applied for any employment whatsoever.