This was an appeal against a judgment of acquittal on charges of cruelty and dowry demand. The court noted that the marriage had already dissolved by divorce before the complaint was filed and that the trial court had been correct in acquitting the accused. The appeal was dismissed.
Leave to appeal was refused; the appeal was dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P.(DB) No. 2293 of 2014
Bushara Khatoon ….........Petitioner
Vrs.
4.Md. Shahid
8.Saminum ….......... Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
For the Petitioner : M/s Mahesh Tewari, Bhaskar Trivedi For the Opposite Parties : Mr. M.A. Khan (for O.P. No. 2 to 8) : Mrs. Sadhna Kumar, A.P.P.
-2-
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2013 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, XII, Ranchi where under learned Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment of acquittal dated 26.07.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 133 of 2005. The accused / private opposite parties herein have been held not guilty of the charges under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
-3-
took place with the accused/ opposite party no.2 herein on 24.02.2013. According to her own case, she spent about 4/5 months peacefully in her inlaws house. However she made complaint before the Idrishia Panchayat that her husband is impotent and insane. On the basis of medical report furnished by the accused, the Panchayat found that he was not insane. He was asked to undergo tests for impotency. In between the complaint case no. 1214 of 2004 was lodged by the complainant's husband against the father of the complainant and others alleging a case of assault by them on 15.12.2004. The instant prosecution ended in acquittal of the accused persons by the judgment dated 22.02.2011. The complaint case was instituted by the complainant on 04.02.2005 alleging offences under section 498A of the I.P.C and Section 4 of the D.P.Act. As per her case, the accused persons had demanded Colour T.V, Sewing Machine, Almira and Rs. 50,000 in cash and assaulted her on the command of her mother-in-law. Finally on 22.01.2005 she was dragged out from the house. It transpires that the complainant had accepted in Maintenance Case No.10 of 2006 that the accused / husband had given her divorce on 24.01.2005 itself. The complainant had also admitted that though she is not entitled for maintenance but her daughter is entitled for maintenance as per her statement made at para 21 in the said maintenance case. The findings of the maintenance case was never challenged in the court of law / Family Court and have attained finality.
-4-
accused / husband stood dissolved due to the divorce given by the accused on 24.01.2005. The complainant did not have any cogent evidence to establish the aforesaid charges against the accused persons, more so when she was living all along till 22.01.2005 in her parents' house as per her own case.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
( Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
A.Mohanty
3 issues framed by the court
Whether leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 DWPA should be granted.
Whether the finding of the lower courts that the accused were not entitled to the charges is sustainable on facts.
Whether the delay in preferring the petition under Section 498A IPC can be condoned.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bushara Khatoon
Md. Zahid
Agasari Khatoon
Md. Shahid
Md. Mahojid
Md. Sahoyar
Apareesh Kumar Singh
Ratnaker Bhengra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
