Kunti Bai vs. Hukumchand

Criminal Appeal No.3434/2014

5.2.2015

Shri Sanjay Gupta, counsel for the appellant.

Shri Sameer Chile, G.A. for the respondent no.6/State.

Heard on admission.

The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 31.10.2014 passed by the Additional Judge to the First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Criminal Appeal No.367/2013 whereby, the judgment dated 22.10.2013 passed by the JMFC, Chhindwara in Criminal Case No.1733/2007 was reversed and the respondents no.1 to 5 were acquitted from the charge of offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. The trial Court has convicted the respondents no.1 to 5 of offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C and sentenced the respondents to three years R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- each.

The prosecutions case in short is that the marriage of the complainant Kunti Bai (PW1) took place with the respondent no.4 on 12.2.2004. After one year of her marriage, she went to her parent's house for staying. The respondent no.4 thereafter filed an application at Mahila Parivar Parmarsh Kendra and thereafter, he took the complainant. Thereafter, she was harassed by the respondents no.1 to 5. She was not given food and she was threatened. Dowry of a big vehicle and T.V along with cash of Rs.50,000/- was demanded. The complainant had lodged an FIR and thereafter, a case was registered.

The trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties convicted and sentenced the respondents no.1 to 5 as mentioned above whereas, the appellate Court acquitted the respondents no.1 to 5 from the charge of Section 498-A of I.P.C.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be apparent that the complainant Kunti Bai (PW1) has accepted that she came to her parents house in March 2007 and thereafter, she was residing in her parents house continuously. She has also accepted in para 7 of her statement that an application before the Parivar Parmarsh Kendra was given by her husband and thereafter, taking advise from Parivar Parmarsh Kendra, she went to the house of the respondents. Thereafter, she did not go to Mahila Parivar Parmarsh Kendra any more. She has accepted that prior to the year 2008 and 2009 she was residing with her husband in a peaceful manner.

After considering the evidence given by the complainant and the other witnesses, it appears that the complainant was residing with her parents since long and when she got the news of second marriage of her husband took place then an FIR was lodged at the Police Station. If she was aggrieved with the behavior of the respondents no.1 to 5 then FIR should have been lodged soon after the incidence when the complainant was ousted from the house of the respondents. On the contrary, it appears that she was happily residing with her parents without any complaint. Such situation can arise if there was no cruelty done by the respondents no.1 to 5 against her when she was residing with them. It is a doubtful case. The appellate Court has rightly given the benefit of doubt to the respondents no.1 to 5. There is no illegality or perversity visible in the judgment passed by the appellate Court. There is no reason to accept the present appeal.

Consequently, the present appeal under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C filed by the appellant Kunti Bai is hereby dismissed at motion stage.

Copy of the order be sent to the Courts below along with their records for information.

(N.K. Gupta) Judge

bina