- (1.)This criminal revision is directed against judgment dated 30 -11 -2006 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandla, in Criminal Case No.67/2003; whereby accused persons/respondents Pannalal, Gurukhoolal, Shanti Bai, Kamla Bai and Mona were acquitted of the charge under section 498 -A of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.)The prosecution case in nutshell was that victim Gayatri Bai married accused/respondent No.1 Pannalal in the year 2001. The remaining respondents are relatives of Pannalal. Respondent Pannalal and his family members kept victim Gayatri Bai well for a few days; however, after that they started demanding Rs.25,000/ - and a two wheeler by way of dowry and started to beat her up for aforesaid purpose. She was also pressurized into going in for abortion. Subsequently, she instituted a written report with police station Mandla on 10 -06 -2002; whereon, the final report was filed against the accused persons/respondents.
(3.)After the trial, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Mandla acquitted the accused persons extending benefit of doubt. The grounds on which the accused persons were acquitted may briefly be stated as hereunder:
(1) There were discrepancies between the written report (Ex.P/1) and the Court statement of victim Gayatri Bai. She has denied in the Court statement that she had lodged a written report and stated that she had only lodged an oral report in the police station; whereas investigating officer Durgesh Nandini (PW -5) states that the victim did not lodge any oral report but had only lodged a written report.

(2) Victim Gayatri Bai has admitted in her cross -examination that she stayed in her matrimonial home for a period of 7 months after marriage that is to say she did not visit her matrimonial home after November, 2001. She had lodged first information report on 10 -06 -2002. There is no explanation as to why the first information report was not lodged between November, 2001 and June, 2002.

(3) The first information report was lodged on 10 -06 -2002 but the medical examination was conducted upon the victim on 10 -05 -2002; wherein, she was found heve suffered two simple injuries. There is no explanation as to how the medico -legal examination was conducted a month prior to the lodging of first information report.

(4) Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that in the MLC report, the date of 10 -05 -2002 was mentioned instead of 10 -06 -2002 by mistake, it is not clear as to how such injuries could have been caused by accused Pannalal because the victim never visited her matrimonial home after November, 2001.

(5) Ganpat Lal (PW -2) and Sevti Bai (PW -3), father and mother of the victim respectively, have been examined. Ganpat Lal has stated that he had no first -hand knowledge of dowry harassment and Sevti Bai failed to state anything regarding dowry harassment in her examination -in -chief. Consequently, she had to be declared hostile.

(6) PW -8 Narendra Kumar, brother of the victim, had gone out of his way to denounce accused No.1 Pannalal and has stated that he had contracted second marriage; whereas, it is not the case of the prosecution at all that the accused No.1 had performed another marriage.