The State of Bihar vs Md. Rahman and Others

Honourable Mr. Justice Mandhata Singh

Prosecution case initiated on Fardbeyan of Ajiwan Bibi, in brief, is that she was married with accused respondent No. 1. Her father was dead and the marriage was arranged by her maternal uncle. She lived with all O.K. and gave birth of a female child after a year of marriage. Thereafter it is said that accused respondent nos.1 to 6 started to make demand of Rs. 30,000/- on the pretext that the same would be deposited for marriage of her daughter further by saying that no dowry was given at the occasion of marriage. So, the amount should be paid. Further it is said that she (informant) was abused, assaulted and even ousted from the matrimonial home. She narrated the whole story to her family members. A Panchaiti was conducted on the instance of her maternal uncle but without any result.

The trial is ended in acquittal of all the accused respondents. In all seven witnesses are examined on behalf of prosecution and two on behalf of Respondents.

Of prosecution witnesses, P.W. 6 has not corroborated the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. P. Ws 1 to 4 have been found hearsay, P.W. 7 is I.O. of the case, so P.W. 5 victim only remained to discuss the prosecution case. No doubt she has corroborated whole prosecution story but has not been believed due to contradictions occurred in her statement that on the point of assault and ouster, in the F.I.R. Exhibit-1 she is stating that Mansoor Ali and Roma Ali came to her rescue to matrimonial home where she was being assaulted by accused persons and in Court she is stating about coming of Sarfuddin, Raffu Mian, Ajamal Ali omitting the name of Roma Ali. Another point is about pouring of kerosene oil as she is stating in her statement in Court but this allegation is missing in the F.I.R. Another contradiction is about assault for which she was thinking to end her life which never was part of the allegation made in the F.I.R. These are the contradictions found by the trial court in examination in chief of the informant, apart from the same, something has been found appeared in her cross-examination. In paragraph 4 of her cross-examination she is stating about her having a brother (major) but he did not prefer to support the sister''s allegation.

Thus, I find no mistake committed in the judgment/order dated 10.7.2001 passed by the trial court acquitting all the accused Respondents. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed.