An appeal against the acquittal of Hisi Murmu in a dowry harassment case. The appellant failed to appear; the Court reviewed evidence and upheld the acquittal due to lack of proof against the surviving accused.
The appeal was dismissed; the impugned judgment of acquittal against Hisi Murmu was upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Acquittal Appeal No. 38 of 2001
----
Against the judgment of acquittal dated 23.02.2001 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ghatsila, in C1 Case No. 15/1997
-----
Smt.Laxmi Mani Murmu w/o Shri Bhim Chandra Murmu, resident of village Titiha, PO Chakulia, District East Singhbhum at present residing in her father's house c/o Sri Bhagabat Hansda, s/o late Jadu Nandan of village Bhursani, PS Shyamsundarpur, District East Singhbhum
Appellant
Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Bhim Murmu s/o Sri Mangal Murmu
3.Mangla Murmu s/o late Bhim Murmu
4.Jhari Murmu w/o Sri Mangla Murmu 5.Hisi Murmu d/o Sri Nangal Murmu
All village - Titiha, PS Chakulia, District East Singhbhum Respondents ---
For the Appellant/Complainant : None For the Respondent-State : Mr.Pankaj Kumar, APP For Respondent-Acquitted Accused : Mrs.Sneh Singh, Advocate
PRESENT
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
Dated : 11th August, 2016
Per Virender Singh, C.J. :
In all, four accused namely Bhim Murmu son of Sri Mangal Murmu, Mangla Murmu son of late Bhim Murmu, Jhari Murmu wife of Sri Mangla Murmu and Hisi Murmu daughter of Sri Mangal Murmu, were put on trial in a complaint filed by the appellant Smt.Laxmi Mani Murmu wife of Shri Bhim Chandra Murmu for the offences punishable under section 498-A and 323 I.P.C. They earned acquittal, vide impugned judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ghatsila dated 23.02.2001, aggrieved thereof, the complainant filed the instant appeal, in which leave to appeal was granted by the Court, vide order dated 14th June, 2001.
2. When the instant appeal was taken on the last date of
2
hearing i.e. 4th August, 2016, none appeared for the complainantappellant, so is the position even today. At the very outset, Mrs.Sneh Singh appearing for the respondents made a statement at the Bar that out of four acquitted respondent-accused, Bhim Murmu son of Sri Mangal Murmu, Mangla Murmu son of late Bhim Murmu and Jhari Murmu wife of Sri Mangla Murmu have since died. The factum of death of these three persons has been confirmed by Mr.Pankaj Kumar. He also places on record the report of S.H.O of the police station and the same be tagged at its proper place. The instant appeal thus abates qua Bhim Murmu, Mangla Murmu and Jhari Murmu and survives qua Hisi Murmu daughter of Sri Mangal Murmu and sister of Bhim Murmu, husband of the complainantappellant.
3. Mrs.Sneh Singh submitted that there appears to be general allegation against all the four accused of making demand of dowry. Learned counsel submitted that there was no specific demand alleged against Hisi Murmu. It is submitted that when CW5, Laxmi Mani Murmu, complainant-appellant stepped into the witness box, she stated that respondent-accused Hisi Murmu made demand of money whereas, that was never the case of the complainant-appellant set up in the initial complaint and that all the four respondent-accused were roped in with general allegation of demand of dowry. Learned counsel thus vehemently contended that in the flashback of the fact that the husband of the complainant-appellant and her parents-in-law having already died and there being general allegation levelled against the only surviving respondent-accused, Hisi Murmu, the case of the complainant-appellant cannot be said to be proved to the hilt for the purposes of holding her guilty for the charges under section 498-A and 323 I.P.C. She thus prays
3
for confirming the impugned judgment of acquittal.
4. Since counsel for the compliant-appellant has not come present, we, after getting assistance from Mr.Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel for the State, have re-scanned the entire prosecution evidence and the defence evidence available on trial court record in its right perspective for arriving at a just conclusion of the case and find that the impugned judgment of acquittal earned by the accused does not suffer from any infirmity on any count, inasmuch as the complainant-side has not been able to prove the charges against the respondent- Hisi Murmu to the hilt. The impugned judgment of acquittal thus deserves to be upheld. The appeal on hand merits dismissal. Ordered accordingly.
(Virender Singh, C.J.)
(Shree Chandrashekhar,J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi The 11th August,2016 N.A.F.R/ dey
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal against acquittal of Hisi Murmu charging under sections 498-A and 323 IPC should be dismissed given the complainant’s absence.
Whether the general allegations of dowry demand survived the death of other accused persons to sustain the conviction of Hisi Murmu.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt.Laxmi Mani Murmu
Bhim Murmu
Mangla Murmu
Jhari Murmu
Hisi Murmu
Virender Singh
Shree Chandrashekhar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
