Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 28.09.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, (J.D.) Chakia, Chandauli in Criminal Case No. 114 of 1999 (State Vs. Ram Charittar and others) in criminal case no. C4 of 1998 under Section 498A, 323,506 IPC and 3/4 D.P.Act, ps- Naugarh, Chandauli, by which four accused persons of the said trial were acquitted.

2. Complainant Munni Devi (present revisionist) had moved application under Section 156(3) CrPC which was allowed and case crime no. C4 of 1998 was registered as four accused persons, namely, Ram Charitra, Sitaram, Jamuna and Ram Dulari. After investigation, police had submitted chargesheet against them for the offence under Section 498A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act. , for which they were charged.

3. The prosecution case in brief was that complainant Munni Devi (PW-1) was married five years ago with Ram Charittar Yadav. After this marriage, her husband Ram Charittar, father-in-law Sita Ram, mother-in-law Ram Dulari and Jamuna Yadav had been treating her with cruelty for demand of dowry and for that reason on 24.10.1998 at about 10:00 a.m. accused had beaten her, snatched her minor daughter and expelled her from their house.

4. In support of the charges, prosecution side had examined PW-1 Munni Devi (complainant), PW-2 Prem Nath, PW-3 Sahjade, PW-4 Girja Dhobi, PW-5 Rajiv Ranjan Maurya (I.O.) and PW.-6 Parsuram Pandey. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under section 313 CrPC was recorded in which they had denied the allegations against them as well as charged incident and stated that false evidence was adduced against them due to enmity. They had adduced DW-1 Loknath, DW-2 Ram Lacchhan as well as documentary evidence in their defence.

5. The trial court had afforded opportunity of hearing to the parties and thereafter passed the impugned judgment dated 28.09.2005 by which all the four accused (present respondent nos. 2 to 5) were acquitted of all the charges. Aggrieved by this judgment, complainant Smt. Munnit Devi had preferred present revision.

6. Heard Sri Ramesh Rai, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the respondents and perused the records.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that though there are some contradictions in statement of sedateness of fact but all contradictions are not prejudicial to prosecution case, if they are not on relevant points. He contended that delay in lodging the FIR in such a matter is immaterial because if several disputed position of prosecution emerges. He also pointed that in this case marriage of revisionist/wife with Ram Charittar is proved as well as admitted , and it is also proved that other accused are his family members. There is specific evidence of cruelty due to demand of dowry which is supported by evidence of independent witnesses but trial court had not properly appreciated evidence and gave finding of fact on the basis of the presumptions and conjunctures which are not admissible in evidence. The trial court had not disclosed as to why statement of the victim was disbelieved. He also pointed out that defence witnesses are neighbours of the accused respondents. Therefore, their testimony is not believable and impugned judgment is erroneous which should be quashed and should be allowed.

8. Learned AGA contended that prosecution evidences in this case are mostly on the basis of hearsay. There is contradiction of every point in prosecution evidence. PW-2, PW. 3 and PW-4 could not prove the commission of any effort in front of them and their evidences are based on either hearsay or on speculation which is not admissible in evidence even PW-1 prosecutrix had stated that she had no talks with any person since living the house of her husband till reaching his parental home. Three witnesses, namely PWs-2,3 and 4 had given evidences on the basis of their talk with prosecutrix. Learned AGA contended that judgment of trial cou