STATE OF BIHAR Vs. MD. NAQUI AKHTAR KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and learned counsel for the accused-respondents opposite parties. Prosecution case initiated on written report of Mahzabi Khatoon, in brief, is that she was married with accused Mh. Jamshed Khan (since deceased) on 05.06.1993. After marriage she went to her sasural and spent conjugal life. It is alleged that after sometime, all the accused persons started to demand colour television, Hero Honda Motorcycle, freeze, etc.. Refusal was the reply as her father was not in capacity to fulfill all those demands so, accused persons started to torture. Thereafter, she was sent to her Naiher to bring the above articles. It is said that Rs.40,000.00 was given by her father to her husband but torture continued for rest of articles in the year 1995. She went to Deoghar with her husband but torture continued. She was assaulted in the year 1996 and was sent to her Naiher. On some persuasion, she again came back to her Sasural at Gewalbigha, Gaya but torture continued and finally she was ousted from the matrimonial home.

(2.) THE S.D.J.M., Gaya tried the case, convicted and sentenced all the petitioners-accused persons by passing judgment and order dated 18.09.2004, validity of the same was challenged in Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2004 and Appeal is decided by Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, Gaya in acquittal by passing the Judgment dated 08.11.2006. The above judgment is challenged in present appeal by the Government and in revision by the complainant herself. I went through the judgment of trial Court as well as of the Appellate Court and found that there is more elaboration by the Appellate Court in disbelieving the prosecution case, including her admission by P.W.4 that she remained in Deoghar with her husband for a period of one and half year where her relation with her husband was not good. Further that her husband came to know regarding her earlier marriage with Md. Safique after one and half year of the marriage. Her further admission in paragraph-37 is that a case was filed on her behalf in Emaratia Sharriya Phulwarisharif in which allegation was leveled on her behalf against the husband only for demand and torture. On the point of dowry, this witness, P.W.4 in paragraph-31 states that there was no condition and demand of any dowry at any time at the time of her and her brother's marriage. This Golta marriage is admitted by P.W.5 in paragraph-14 also that there was no demand of dowry in course of Golta marriage either by any side. This Golta marriage or no demand is admitted by P.W.1, P.W.2. in paragraph- 16 and P.W.3 in paragraph-28 also. So, it rightly has been observed that the differences were in between the wife and husband. In my view that could not be extended to respondent-opposite parties.