In appeals against acquittal, the court should not interfere unless the finding is perverse or illegal. If two views are possible based on evidence, the view favorable to the accused must be adopted, as suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

1. This criminal appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the appellant/complainant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.08.2014 passed by the learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh, District Damoh, in Criminal Appeal No.152 of 2014 reversing the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Criminal Case No.894 of 2006 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Damoh, whereby the respondents No.1 to 5 had been convicted under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- each, with default stipulation.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Mamta Yadav was married to respondent No.1 Veer Singh Yadav about six years prior to the incident and is his legally wedded wife. At the time of marriage, the complainant’s father, according to his financial capacity, gave two tolas of gold, cash amounting to Rs.40,000/- and household articles including a television, sofa, fan, deck and other items to the respondents No.1 to 5, the total value whereof was stated to be approximately Rs.70,000/- to Rs.80,000/-. It is alleged that soon after the marriage, respondents No.1, 3, 4 and 5 subjected the complainant to cruelty and harassment in connection with unlawful demand of dowry. Despite such harassment, the complainant continued to reside at her matrimonial home. It is further alleged that her father-in-law threatened to kill her by using a firearm and that respondent No.1 Veer Singh Yadav used to assault her mercilessly. It is further the prosecution case that when the harassment by her in-laws increased, the complainant lived separately with her husband at Sagar for about one month, during which period she sustained herself from her own resources. Thereafter, the complainant shifted to Damoh, where respondent No.1 Veer Singh Yadav resided with her, but continued to assault and harass her with the intent of extracting money from her parental family. It is alleged that on one occasion, respondent No.1 Veer Singh Yadav attempted to burn their minor daughter, Nikita and on several occasions, assaulted the complainant with sticks and axes at her matrimonial home. According to the prosecution, about four to five months prior to the lodging of the report, the respondent No.1 husband abandoned the complainant and returned to his parental home after forcibly taking Rs.10,000/- from her. It is further alleged that the complainant came to know that respondent No.1 Veer Singh Yadav had remarried out of greed for dowry. On these allegations, the complainant lodged a report at Police Station Damoh Dehat on 13.08.2005, which has been exhibited as Ex. P-9. On the basis of the said report, a First Information Report was registered vide Ex. P-3. The respondents No.1 to 5 were arrested. During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses Sundarlal, Chandabai, Mamtabai, Kishore Yadav and Shashibai were recorded.

3. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. Thereafter, charge under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Pro