Smt. Pushpa vs Smt. Arti Bai

Subhash Kakade, J.—This Appeal has been filed by the complainant against the judgment dated 20.04.2012 passed by learned JMFC, Khandwa in Criminal Complaint Case No. 4052/10 whereby respondent was acquitted from the charges punishable under Sections 294, 324, 506-II of IPC.

To appreciate the say of the appellant, I would like to say that basic case that was placed before the trial Court in nutshell is that the accused respondent committed Marpeet with appellant along with other family members. Complaint case u/s 200 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant for taking cognizance against the respondent and other co-accused. Learned trial Court framed the charges and recorded the statements of Pushpa Bai (PW. 1) and her father Kishan (PW. 2) and held that respondent is not guilty for the alleged commission of offence and acquitted her, against which this appeal.

The prosecution has examined Smt. Pushpa Bai (PW/1) and Kishan (PW/2) to prove its case. During the statement the accused/respondent denied the incident and pleaded her innocence.

Learned trial Judge after appreciating the evidence on record, recorded impugned judgment of acquittal.

Shri K.S. Rajput, learned counsel appearing with Shri A.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent have taken me through the entire judgment and main grounds of challenge mentioned in the memo of appeal and pointed out the error that has allegedly committed at the time of recording of the findings of acquittal by the learned trial Court.

Learned trial court, after appreciating the evidence of Smt. Pushpa Bai (PW/1) and Kishan (PW. 2) found material contradictions, omissions in their evidence and also found that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted her.

Learned trial Court also found following facts that:-

(i) apart from contradictions, omissions etc. medical report is not available;

(ii) father of appellant, Kishan (PW. 2) is not eyewitness because he was not present on the date of incident on the spot;

(iii) there is apparent rivalry between the parties as they are relatives;

(iv) case against Kishan punishable u/s 354 of IPC was filed by present respondent.

Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. It is a well settled principle of law that unless the judgment of acquittal is palpably wrong and grossly unreasonable, interference in an appeal against acquittal by the complainant is not called for.

The appeal is dismissed summarily.