Advocates:
['MUKESH BIHARI LAL', '', 'SUNIL SINGH', 'APP', '', 'KRIPA SHANKAR NANDA', 'JASHODHARA TRIPATHY']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.Appeal (DB) No. 672 of 2013

Babita Devi @ Babli wife of Shri Aditya Chaurasiya, resident

of village Bauri Para, PS-Sadar, Dhanbad, PO & District-

Dhanbad.

…...

Appellant

-Versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Aditya Chourasiya son of Jagdish Chourasiya

3. Jagdish Chourasiya son of late Uma Chourasiya

4. Geeta Devi wife of Jagdish Chourasiya

5. Sunita Kumari daughter of Jagdish Chourasiya

6. Parwati Devi wife of late Uma Chourasiya

All residents of village Lodna, PO-Lodna, PS-Jhariya, District-

Dhanbad.

…....

Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.P. BHATT

…

For the Appellant :Mr.Mukesh Bihari Lal, Advocate

For the State

:Mr.Shekhar Sinha, APP

For Respondents 2 to 6: Mr.K.S.Nanda, Advocate

Order no.16/ Dated 12

^th August, 2015

Per Virender Singh, C.J.

1.

This is an appeal under Section 372 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure by one Babita Devi @ Babli-

complainant -victim showing her grievance against the

acquittal earned by her husband-Aditya Chourasiya and

his other four family members (respondent nos.2 to 6

respectively) for the charge of Section 498(A)/307/323 IPC

vide impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions

Judge-VI- Special Fast Track Court, Dhanbad dated 10th

May, 2013.

2.

Pursuant to notice, Mr.K.S.Nanda, learned counsel,

appears for all the five acquitted respondents. For perusal,

lower court record has also been called for.

3.

The instant appeal is at admission stage and we have

heard learned counsel for both the sides at length. Some

material evidence from the trial court record has also been

perused by us.

4.

Mr.Mukesh Bihari Lal, learned counsel appearing for

2.

appellant-complainant, states that trial court has not

properly appreciated the evidence of complainant-Babita

Devi @ Babli which has caused grave prejudice to the

complainant. He submitted that other evidence produced

by complainant was also worth credence for the purposes

of holding all the accused guilty for the offence of Section

498(A)/307/323 IPC but the learned trial court on flimsy

ground has rejected the same.

5.

On the contrary, Mr. Nanda appearing for acquitted

respondents submitted that, in fact, complainant had

already married to one Sanjay Kumar Gupta before she got

married to respondent- Aditya Chourasiya, which fact was

not known to Aditya Chourasiya at all. He submitted that

complainant had also filed a case against Sanjay Kumar

Gupta alleging that she was being tortured by him and his

family members and it is from there only Aditya

Chourasiya came to know that complainant, in fact, had

married to one Sanjay Kumar Gupta and had kept this fact

close to her chest. This turns out to be a ground for

respondent-Aditya Chourasiya to filed a petition for

declaring his marriage as null and void, which petition was

ultimately decreed in his favour. Learned counsel fairly

submitted that complainant has also filed a First Appeal

against the said decree, whereby marriage between Aditya

Chourasiya and complainant was declared null and void

and that operation of the said decree has been stayed. He

however submitted that the evidence otherwise led by

complainant appears to be most weak on the face of it to

prove any of the charges against the respondents.

6.

Mr.Nanda submitted that learned trial court has

discussed each and every aspects very minutely and even

the allegation leveled by complainant that at one stage

when she was turned out of the matrimonial home and she

stayed with grand father of respondent- Aditya Chourasiya

3.

where her father and Jagdish Chourasiya( father-in-law)

were called and from where she was sent back to

matr