IMPORTANT POINT
In cases under Section 498A IPC, strict proof of marriage is not required; evidence of harassment and dowry demand is sufficient.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. In this appeal as filed under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.04.1999 as passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda has been assailed by the complainant.

2. By the impugned judgment the accused/respondent no.1 herein is found not guilty under Section 498A IPC and he is thus acquitted under Section 248 (1) CrPC in case no.1238(c) of 1996.

3. The complainant felt aggrieved and thus filed the instant appeal after taking leave of the High Court.

4. For effective adjudication of the instant appeal the facts leading to initiation of complaint case no.1238(c) of 1996 is required to be dealt with in a nut shell. The complainant who is the appellant before this Court filed a complaint against the respondent no.1 herein as well as against one Yasin Ali, one Mohasin Ali and one Moslim Ali stating that respondent no.1 herein in is her husband while the other accused persons are her in-laws. She complained that immediately after her marriage all the accused persons used to inflict torture upon her on account of demand of Rs.1,00,000/-. She stated in her complaint that on 14.11.1996 at about 8 pm when she was standing in front of her paternal home at that time all the accused persons armed with deadly weapons like Hasua, stick, etc. started assaulting her by pulling her hair and also assaulted her by kicks and blows. Seeing such incident the inmates of her paternal home and the witnesses of such incident (whose names have been mentioned in the said written complaint) rushed to the spot and thereafter the accused persons fled away.

5. Trial court record reveals that the learned Magistrate after taking cognizance examined the complainant and the witnesses and directed for investigation under Section 200 CrPC and on receipt of such investigation report, issued process under Section 204 CrPC in the name of the respondent no.1, however, he dismissed the complaint as against the other accused person under Section 203 CrPC.

6. Pursuant to the summons the respondent no.2/accused appeared before the learned trial court and prayed for bail and such prayer was allowed. On 04.06.1998 the trial court considered the charge under Section 498A IPC as against the accused and on the self same day charge under Section 498A IPC was framed against him.

7. In order to bring home the charge, the complainant has examined 6 witnesses in all and on behalf of the defence four witnesses have also been examined. From the deposition of the complaint witnesses it reveals that PW1 is the complainant herself, PW2 is a resident of Uttar Kaliganj, PW3 is a resident of Kaliganj and PW4 is the brother-in-law of PW1. PW5 is a Muslim Marriage Registrar and PW6 is the father of the complainant. So far as defence witnesses are concerned it appears that all the defence witnesses are co-villagers of the complainant and they reside in and around the house of the complainant. On behalf of the complainant two documents have been exhibited also.

8. It is pertinent to mention herein that the appellant who is a lady appeared in person before this Court on 08.07.2024 and requested this Court to appoint a lawyer on her behalf and accordingly this Court appointed Ms. Momami Mukherjee, learned advocate for the appellant with a request to the Secretary, High Court Legal Service Committee to regularize her appointment in connection with the instant appeal.

9. In course of her hearing Ms. Monami Mukherjee, learned advocate for the appellant at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the evidence of PW1. It is argued that from the evidence of PW1 it would reveal that she testified that her marriage was solemnized with respondent no.1 according to the Muslim Rites on 24th June, 1995 and thereafter she started living with her husband. She further testified that she was thrown out of her matrimonial home by her husband on account of her failure to fulfil the demand of Rs.1,00,000/-towards dowry.