Special leave against acquittal in a dowry harassment case dismissed. High Court upheld trial court's view that evidence was inconsistent and corroborative evidence lacking.
Special leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal 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. No. 2308 of 2017
Manjit Kaur ….........Petitioner
Vrs.
1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Giridhari Lal @ Girdhari Lal 3.Manoj Kumar @ Bittu 4.Smt. Minu Devi 5.Raman Kumar @ Rikky 6.Ashok Kumar @ Titu 7.Smt. Sona Devi 8.Smt. Reena Devi 9.Vijay Kumar ….......... Opposite Parties ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA For the Petitioner : Mr.Girish Mohan Singh For the State : Mrs. Niki Sinha, A.P.P.
-2-
and attempt was also made to burn her alive and in result the complainant sustained physical injuries and her middle finger of left hand was badly injured . She along with her husband and minor son left for her paternal house after leaving all her articles and jewellary in a room by locking it. They reported the matter to Telco Police Station who referred her to M.G.M. Hospital and also forwarded the report to Sonari Police Station. She was treated at M.G.M. Hospital. The accused persons threw her minor son on the floor who sustained injury.
C.W.1 is the sister of the complainant; C.W.2 is her father; C.W.3 is her husband, whose evidence was expunged and C.W.4 is the complainant herself. Learned Trial Court discussed the evidences of the complainant witnesses in the light of the allegations made and also the defence version. It however came to a finding that statements of C.W.1 and 2 were different on the point of assault and further event of reporting to the Police and going to the paternal house. C.W.1, sister of the complainant stated having seen the assault on the complainant on 29.01.2009 who went to her neighbor Sukhwinder Singh who gave a shawl to cover herself. However, during examination complainant did not name Sukhwinder Singh and did not examine him, though he was one of the main witnesses who could have deposed about the incidence. C.W.1 also spoke that she saw blood on the body of her sister when she returned to her paternal house, though she stated that she was present at the time of incidence. C.W.1 also stated that after the incidence complainant went to her paternal house and thereafter to the Police Station and to the Hospital. C.W.2, her father on the other hand stated that complainant had gone to the police station and thereafter to the paternal house. These 3 witnesses therefore made different statements about what happened after the incidence. Claim of C.W.1 as eye witness to the alleged incidence therefore, was not acceptable. The complainant had not adduced any documentary proof such as prescription, discharge report etc. of her treatment at M.G.M hospital. Finding inconsistencies in the statement of the complainant witnesses and lack of any other corroborative evidence to establish the allegation of assault and treatment at M.G.M. Hospital, learned Trial Court arrived at an
-3-
opinion that the allegations have not been proved beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. It can also be taken note of the fact that complainant made allegations against 10 persons, practically all the family members in her in-laws house but the evidence is completely lacking in that regard as to the complicity of any of these individual except one Vijay Kumar, who was younger brother-inlaw of the complainant. Omnibus allegations have been made but have remained unsubstantiated. The accused therefore were granted the benefit of doubt and were acquitted.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
( Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
A.Mohanty
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner against the acquittal of accused persons in a dowry harassment case deserves to be allowed?
Whether the inconsistencies in the evidence and lack of corroboration render the trial court's finding of acquittal safe?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.Referred
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Manjit Kaur
State of Jharkhand
Giridhari Lal
Manoj Kumar
Minu Devi
Raman Kumar
Apareesh Kumar Singh
Ratnaker Bhengra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
