Display PDF

1 of 1
IN THE COURT OF Ms. Lucy Sosen Tigga, A.C.J.M., BOKARO

Present: Ms. Lucy Sosen Tigga, A.C.J.M, Bokaro,
Date of Judgement- 12.05.2023.
Case No.- G.R. Case No. 767/2022
INFORMANT Geeta Devi
COUNSEL OF THE Smt. Etmanil Bhownara, Ld. A.P.P.

PROSECUTION
ACCUSED Santosh Narayan Prasad
COUNSEL OF THE ACCUSED Md. Kuddus Ansari, Ld. Advocate.
Cognizance Date Offences Number of Name of the

the Accused Accused
persons persons
23.07.2022 341, 323, 1 Santosh

504, 506, Narayan
498(A) of Prasad
I.P.C & 3/ 4
of D.P. Act.
Name of the Accused Date of first Appearance
Santosh Narayan Prasad 28.04.2023
Charge Date Offences Number of Name of the

Framed the Accused Accused
persons persons
28.04.2023 341, 323, 1 Santosh

504, 506, Narayan
498(A) of Prasad
I.P.C & 3/ 4
of D.P. Act.
Date of commencement of evidence 11.05.2023
Date on which statement u/s 313 of 12.05.2023

1 of 2
Cr.p.c recorded
Date of commencement of defence -------

evidence
Date of the Arguments 12.05.2023
LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES
A. Prosecution:
RANK NAME NATURE OF

EVIDENCE
P.W. 1 Geeta Devi Informant
P.W. 2 Krishna Sahu
JUDGEMENT
1. Accused person namely Santosh Naryan Prasad is facing trial for

the offence u/s. 341, 323, 504, 506, 498(A) of Indian Penal Code & 3/ 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act (therein referred after I.P.C & D.P. Act).
2. The factual matrix of this case in brief as per the complaint

petition filed before the Ld. C.J.M which was sent u/s. 156 of Cr.P.C is that on
24.04.18 complainant got married with Santosh Narayan Prasad according to
Hindu rites and customs at Sector-12, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro. At the time
of marriage informant’s parents gave her household articles, ornaments,
furniture of worth Rs. 5 Lakh and a demand draft of Rs. 2,95,000/-. After
marriage informant went to her sasural where she was abused for not bringing
proper dowry. She was tortured physically and mentally by the accused
persons. When informant complaint about the matter to her husband, on this
he started abusing and accusing her. On 07.02.19 complainant gave birth to a
female child at Dhanbad but due to some physical ailment she died on
15.02.19. For the second time informant became pregnant she was not
provided with medical assistance due to which she informed about the matter
to the concerning P.S Singhrouli (M.P). Hence, this case.
1 of 3
3. On the basis of written application of the informant namely

Geeta Devi, Sector-12 P.S. Case No. 23/2022 was registered on 27.03.2022
and I.O. namely Rajesh Kumar Yadav (S.I) took up investigation of the case.
On completion of the same he submitted charge sheet No-01/2022, dated
23.07.22 against accused person namely Santosh Narayan Prasad for the
offence u/s 341, 323, 504, 506, 498(A) of I.P.C & 3/ 4 of D.P. Act.
4. The learned counsel for the defence submitted that there is no

material evidence against the accused persons. Hence the accused persons may
be acquitted.
5. Now the question arises before the court whether the prosecution
has been able to prove charge levelled against the accused persons beyond the
shadow of all reasonable doubt or not ?
FINDINGS
6. P.W. 1 Geeta Devi in his examination in chief she has deposed

that on 24.04.18 she was married with Santosh Narayan Prasad according to
Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage her father gave household
articles and she went to her sasural where she remained properly for three
months. After that altercation started in the sasural. After that she went and
filed the case against her in laws. She filed a complaint case having
Complaint Case no. 349/2022 which was sent to the concerning P.S u/s. 156(3)
of Cr.P.C and F.I.R was registered having Sector-12 P.S. Case no. 23/22 to
which she has identified.
In her cross-examination she has deposed that some

misunderstanding have taken place between her and her husband. Her in laws
had never tortured physically and mentally nor they have demanded for dowry.
She has compromised this case before the Mediation Centre and one time
settlement has taken place between both of them and a demand draft of Rs.
8,05,000/- has been paid to the informant.
1 of 4
7. P.W. 2 Krishna Sahu in his examination in chief he has deposed

that his daughter Geeta Devi filed this case against Santosh Narayan Prasad.
She was married on 24.04.18 according to Hindu rites and customs. At the
time of marriage he had given a demand draft of Rs. 2,95,000/- in the name of
Saraswati Prasad along-with household articles and other articles. Her
daughter went to her sasural where she remained over there peacefully for 10-
15 days. After that the accused persons stopped supplying her with food and
she was tortured physically and mentally. All this incidents were told to him
by his daughter. After that her daughter came and filed this case. Further this
witness has identified accused Santosh Naryan Prasad before the court.
In his cross-examination he has deposed that due to the dispute

between his daughter and his son in law, his daughter has filed this case. His
son in law has never tortured her daughter physically and mentally nor he had
demanded any dowry. They have compromised this case before the Mediation
Centre and further his daughter does not want to proceed with this case.
8. Arguments were advanced on behalf both the parties. Ld. APP

appearing on behalf of the prosecution has submitted before the court that
prosecution in this case has examined altogether two witnesses. Prosecution
has succeeded in proving its case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts.
Hence, the above named person deserves conviction.
Per contra, Ld. Defence counsel appearing on behalf of sole

accused person has submitted before the court that altogether two witnesses
have been examined by the prosecution and none of them have supported the
factum as alleged in the FIR and none of them have also supported the factum
of occurrence. Prosecution in this case has miserably failed to prove this case
beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt.
9. Heard. The arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties at

the length and perused the entire case record coupled with the documents,
from perusal of the record it appears that prosecution in this case has
examined altogether two witnesses. Now, on the basis of deposition of the
witnesses the evidences will be scrutinized. The above named accused person
is facing this trial for the offence alleged u/s 341, 323, 504, 506, 498(A) of
1 of 5
I.P.C & 3/ 4 of D.P. Act. P.W. 1 who happens to be the informant of this case.
In her examination in chief she has deposed that on 24.04.18 she was married
with accused Santosh Narayan Prasad according to Hindu rites and customs
and after her marriage she remained in her sasural for 3 months and later on
matrimonial dispute started taking place. In her cross-examination she has
deposed that due to dispute between her husband, she has filed this case and
her husband and her in laws has never tortured physically and mentally nor
they have demanded for any dowry. Even P.W. 2 who happens to be the father
of the informant. In his examination in chief he has deposed that entire
incident of tortured to her daughter was informed by his daughter and he has
also deposed in his cross-examination that her son in law had never tortured
his daughter physically and mentally nor any demand of dowry was made.
It is evident from the record that both the witnesses have clearly
stated that the sole accused person had never subjected the informant to
cruelty by torturing her physically and mentally and demanded for dowry. As
P.W. 1 who happens to be the informant although she has identified this case
against the sole accused person but she has not uttered a single word that she
was subjected to cruelty in the hands of accused and he had demanded for
dowry from the informant. Even P.W. 2 he has also not supported the factum
of the case. As he deposed that the incidents were disclosed to him by his
daughter and further in his cross-examination he has also deposed that the sole
accused person had never demanded any dowry nor he has tortured his
daughter. As the above named sole accused person is facing this trial u/s. 341,
323, 504, 506, 498(A) of I.P.C & 3/ 4 of D.P. Act.
On meticulously going through the entire judicial record, I find

that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute before the Mediation
Centre and they further do not want to proceed with the case and there is also
lack of substantive and corroborative piece of evidence against the sole
accused for the alleged charges as both the parties have withdraw this case and
they did not support the alleged offence along-with charges.
10. From analysis of prosecution evidence and material available on

the record and in the view of the above discussions, the prosecution in this
case has miserably failed to prove this case against the sole accused person
namely Santosh Narayan Prasad beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt.
1 of 6
Hence, accused person namely Santosh Narayan Prasad is hereby

acquitted of the charge u/s. 341, 323, 504, 506, 498(A) of I.P.C & 3/ 4 of D.P.
Act. As accused person is on bail, his sureties stand discharged from the
liability of his bail bonds.
(Dictated & corrected by me)
Sd/- Sd/-
(Lucy Sosen Tigga) (Lucy Sosen Tigga)
A.C.J.M, Bokaro. A.C.J.M, Bokaro.
Dated : 12.05.2023 Dated : 12.05.2023

Display PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Display PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 of 1

IN THE COURT OF Ms. Lucy Sosen Tigga, A.C.J.M., BOKARO

INFORMANT Geeta Devi

COUNSEL OF THE Smt. Etmanil Bhownara, Ld. A.P.P.

ACCUSED Santosh Narayan Prasad

COUNSEL OF THE ACCUSED Md. Kuddus Ansari, Ld. Advocate.

Cognizance Date Offences Number of Name of the

23.07.2022 341, 323, 1 Santosh

Name of the Accused Date of first Appearance

Santosh Narayan Prasad 28.04.2023

Charge Date Offences Number of Name of the

28.04.2023 341, 323, 1 Santosh

Date of commencement of evidence 11.05.2023

Date on which statement u/s 313 of 12.05.2023

Date of commencement of defence -------

Date of the Arguments 12.05.2023

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES

RANK NAME NATURE OF

P.W. 1 Geeta Devi Informant

P.W. 2 Krishna Sahu

1. Accused person namely Santosh Naryan Prasad is facing trial for

2. The factual matrix of this case in brief as per the complaint

3. On the basis of written application of the informant namely

4. The learned counsel for the defence submitted that there is no

6. P.W. 1 Geeta Devi in his examination in chief she has deposed

In her cross-examination she has deposed that some

7. P.W. 2 Krishna Sahu in his examination in chief he has deposed

In his cross-examination he has deposed that due to the dispute

8. Arguments were advanced on behalf both the parties. Ld. APP

Per contra, Ld. Defence counsel appearing on behalf of sole

9. Heard. The arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties at

On meticulously going through the entire judicial record, I find

10. From analysis of prosecution evidence and material available on

Hence, accused person namely Santosh Narayan Prasad is hereby

You might also like