ABDUL RASHID ABDUL MUSAMIYA Vs. KHUDDUS S/O MAHEBOOBSAB JARGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by original informant, who is aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 6/3/2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2016 arising out of judgment and order of conviction dtd. 5/11/2016 passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Udgir in Sessions Case No. 31 of 2009.

(2.) Above referred Sessions Case emanates from chargesheet filed by City Police Station, Udgir against present respondents for commission of offence under Ss. 498-A, 306, 109 r/w 34 of IPC and under Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The above chargesheet is as a result of crime registered on the FIR filed by PW1 Abdul alleging that, his daughter Atiyabee was married with present respondent Khuddus on 15/5/2008. After few days of marriage, accused put up demand of Rs.50,000.00 for business and for fulfillment of such demand, it is alleged that, husband and inlaws of his daughter maltreated her. Finally, because of the cruelty and harassment meted out to her, she immolated herself and therefore, above charges were slapped. Initially trial of Sessions Case No. 31 of 2009 was conducted and concluded by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Udgir, who, vide his judgment and order dtd. 5/11/2016, held charges proved and convicted the accused. The above order of conviction was assailed by the accused by filing Criminal Appeal before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, who overturned the order of conviction and acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the same, original informant has preferred instant appeal by invoking Sec. 372 of Cr.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant-original complainant would point out that, few months after the marriage, there was demand of Rs.50,000.00. Deceased informed it to her father/informant and other family members. There was ill-treatment on account of non- fulfillment of demand, like providing insufficient food. That, in spite of understanding given to the accused, they did not improve and finally, when the demand and ill-treatment was continued, she committed suicide. According to learned counsel, accused persons, who are husband and in-laws, are totally responsible for her suicide.