AJIT K.SINHA,J. - (1.) : 1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the complainant challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 18th April, 2007, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Bermo at Tenughat, in Complaint Case No. 237 of 1998/Tr. No. 416 of 2007, whereby and whereunder, respondent no. 2 has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 323, 494 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) IN Cr. M.P. No. 925 of 2007, preferred by the appellant herein, seeking leave to appeal, a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 26th June, 2008 granted leave to appeal against the order of acquittal. The facts, in brief, are set out as under: - As per the prosecution case, the complainant -appellant Parvati Devi was married with respondent no. 2, Punu Bhuiyan, in the year, 1985. The couple lived amicably for eleven years. Thereafter, the accused (respondent no. 2 herein) demanded a motorcycle, a colour T.V. and RS.15,000/ - in cash from the father of the complainant. When the demand was not complied, the complainant was physically and mentally tortured by the accused, forcing the complainant to leave her matrimonial home on 15th May, 1998 and to live with her parents. According to the complainant, the accused entered into a second marriage and started cohabiting with the second wife. On 16th May, 1998 a Panchayat meeting was held between the two sides at Sunday Bazar despite which the accused continued to torture the complainant for the colour T.V. and cash of RS.15,000/ -. On 5th November, 1998 the complainant's father Rameshwar Bhuiyan took the complainant to her in -laws house at Village -Jageshwar Bihar but the accused refused to take back the complainant. Thereafter, a complaint case - was filed by the complainant being C.P. No. 237 of 1998 and summons were issued to accused Punu Bhuiyan (husband of the complainant), the second wife of Punu Bhuiyan, the second father -in -law and the second mother -in -law of the said Punu Bhuiyan. However, the trial proceeded only against the accused husband Punu Shuiyan and the other accused were declared absconders.
(3.) THE allegation made in the complaint petition was that the accused did not keep up his promise to pay the amount of Rs. 400/ - to the complainant towards the expenses and instead drove away the complainant from his house to enter into second marriage. C.W. Nos. 3, 4 and 5 have deposed that the accused and the complainant were married for over 17 to 18 years and after 9 to 10 years of married relationship, their relation became strained on account of demand of colour T.V. and cash of Rs. 15,000/ -. It has also been stated that the complainant left the matrimonial home and came to her parent's house where she stated the incident relating to torture to her parents. In a Panchanama prepared on 16th May, 1998 it was decided that the accused shall pay Rs. 4001 - to the complainant towards the expenses and will not torture her any more.;