1 DistrictRohtas. IntheCourtofJudicialMagistrate,1stClass,Bikramganj. PresentRajeshPandey JudicialMagistrate,1stClass. Dated03rddayofMarch2012. G.R.Caseno154/04 Trialno1719/12 (ArisingoutofKarakatP.S.Caseno26/04) State,throughVishwanathPaswan...................................Informant. Versus, 1. NandKishorePaswan,aged35years 2. ChanvritDevi,agedabout60years 3. TrilokPaswan,agedabout80years 4. KamendraPaswan,agedabout28years 5. VirdaPaswan,agedabout65years.........................Accusedpersons.

. (caseu/s323,325,341,504/34IPCandu/s27armsAct) FortheprosecutionSriNageshwarMishra,Ld.APO. ForthedefenceSri,Ld.Advocate.

JUDGMENT 1. Inthepresentcasetheabovenamedaccusedpersonswerefacingtrial u/s323,420.498Aand504/34IPC.Theystandchargedintheabovesectionsandthesamewere readovertotheminhinditowhichtheypleadednotguiltyandclaimedtobetried. 2. Theprosecution'scaseinshortisthatthecomplainantofthiscaseis apardanasinladyandilliteratelady.AccusedRamjanamSinghishishusbandandRamdulari andSurendraKumarKaushikarethedaughterandsoninlawofaccusedSubhagoDevi.Accused SubhagohasillicitrelationwiththeaccusedRamjanamSingh.Furtheritissubmittedthatshe gotinformationfromthewitnessesthattheaccusedpersonshaveappliedformutationalongwith the death certificateof complainant to the C.O. Dawath. Then she went to the office of C.O. DawathandgotinformationthataccusedRamjanamSinghintheinfluenceofaccusedSubhago DevihavegiftedallhispropertytoaccusedSurendraandRamdulariDevionthebasisoffalse facts.ItisfurthersaidthataccusedSubhagoDeviwasthewifeofRamswarupSinghandafter hisdeathshetooktheaccusedRamjanamSinghinherinfluenceandinstigatedhimtogiftall hispropertytoherdaughterandsoninlaw.ItisfurthersubmittedthattheaccusedSubhago DeviisnotthesecondwifeofRamjanamSinghandthedeathcertificateissuedon30.12.88by statisticaldepartmentofBihargovernmentfiledinmutationno.384/9394isfalseandforged.It isfurthersaidthatafterreturningfromtheC.O.Officewhenthecomplainantaskedaboutthe said matter from accused persons, the accused persons assaulted her and snatched her jewelleries,clothesworthrupees10,000.The accusedpersonsafterformingacommonintentionusetoassaulther,abuseherandthrewher outofherhouse.Thenitissubmittedthattheaccusedpersonswanttograbherpropertyfalsely andduetothattheydidthisact.Complainantwenttopolicebutnoactionhasbeentaken. 3. On the basis of the written complaint of informant, Suryapura 2 P.S.Caseno.38/94dated02.09.94u/s 323,380,420,498Aand504/34IPChasbeenregistered againsttheaccusedpersonsandafterinvestigationchargesheetwassubmittedbypoliceunder section323,420,498Aand504/34IPCandld.SDJMtookcognizanceunderthesamesections. Thereafterthecasehasbeentransferredtomypredecessor'scourtfortrialanddisposal.Inthe courseoftransferthiscaseistransferredtothiscourtforthesame.

 4.Aftercompletionofappearanceoftheaccusedpersons,policepaperwas servedupon,andthereafteron01.12.95chargeu/s323,420,498Aand504/34IPCwasframedand theaccusationwasexplainedtotheaccusedpersonsinhinditowhichtheydidnotpleadguilty andclaimedtobetried. 5.Afterexaminingthewitnessesforprosecution,thestatementu/s313ofCr.P.C.of accusedpersonswasrecordedon24.05.06inwhichtheaccusedpersonshavedeniedfromthe evidenceavailableagainstthemandclaimedthemselvestobeinnocent.Argumentsofboththe sideshavebeenheardatlengthandthecaseisfixedforjudgment. 6. Now,thepointfordeterminationbeforethiscourtiswhetherthe prosecutionhasbeenabletoprovethecaseagainsttheaccusedpersonsbeyondtheshadowofall reasonabledoubtsornot? FINDINGS

7.Fromperusalofcaserecorditappearsthatinordertosubstantiatethe charges leveled against the accused persons, prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses, namely, Pw1Ram Nath Singh,Pw2Ram Surat Singh, Pw3Sita Ram Singh, Pw4 Saryu Singh, Pw5Asarfi Devi(informant), Pw6Satyanarain Prasad and Pw7Rambachhan Singh.Besidesthis,theprosecutionhasalsoprovedthecomplaintpetitionandFormalFIRwhich hasbeenmarkedasExibit1andExibit2respectively. 8. Ontheotherhand,defencehasproducedonewitness,namely,Dw1 RamashankarChaudharyandbesidesthiscertifiedcopyofajudgmentpassedbylearnedfamily judgeSasaramhasbeenfiledbythedefencewhichhasbeenmarkedasExibitA.Defencecounsel hasalsomucharguedaboutthefactthattheprosecutionhasnotbeenabletoprovethecase againsttheaccusedpersonsbeyondtheshadowofallreasonabledoubtsandsincethebenefitof doubtmustgoinfavourofaccusedpersons,sotheymaybeacquittedfromthechargesleveled againstthem. 9.Now,Iwouldliketodealtheprosecutionevidencesavailableonrecord. Inthisregard,attheveryoutsetevidenceofinformantwhohasbeenexaminedasPw5istobe considered.Thiswitnesshasdeposedduringhisexaminationinchiefthatthiscasehasbeen registeredbyherandshewasmarriedtoRamjanamSinghbefore89yearsfromtheoccurrence. Theyhadadaughterwhichisaround2025yearsoldandthecomplainantwasmarriedtothe accusedRamjanamSingharound35yearsagoandbeforehermarriagetheaccusedwasmarried tohisfirstwife.Aftersixmonthsofthedeathofhisfirstwifethecomplainantwasmarriedtothe accused.TheaccusedRamjanamandthecomplainanthadonedaughterandason,thesongot deadafter45daysofhisbirth.After56yearsofhermarriagethecomplainantkeephersisterin lawSubhagoDeviaskept.Theaccusedremarriedwithouttheconsentofthecomplainantand whensheobjectedtheaccusedassaultedheralso.HissecondwifeSubhagohadadaughteralso from her first husband who was married to Surendra Kumar Kaushik ho is also one of the accusedinthiscase.ItisfurthersaidthattheaccusedRamjanamhasneithercooperatednordid anything in 3 marrying the daughter of complainant namely, Vimla. Ramjanam got prepared a false death certificateinconnivancewiththeSasarammunicipalityandgiftedallhispropertytoRamdulari andSurendraKumarKaushik.WhenanoticewasreceivedbyherfromtheC.O.OfficeDawath, shegottheknowledgeofallthis.Allfouraccusedpersonshaveassaultedherandsnatchedallher jewelleriesandbelongingsandthenthrewheroutofherhouse.Afterthatthecomplainantis livingatherparentalhouse.Itisalsosaidthatthewitnessesnamely,Ramnath,Ramsuratand othershaveseentheoccurrence.ThenthiswitnesshasidentifiedtheaccusedRamjanamSingh presentinthecourtandfurthershealsosaidthatthepresentcomplainthasbeenfiledbyher andld.CounselRambachanSinghhasdraftedthiscomplaintpetitiononwhichshehasputher RTI. Duringhercrossexamination,thiswitnesshasstatedthatDhanrajoDeviis hersisterandtheirfather'snameisHarichandraSinghwhoisofLaduivillage.HisbrotherBrija died11.5yearsback.Thenthiswitnesshasdeniedthesuggestionmadetoherthatsheresidesat

Basanwithhersisterandbrotherinlaw.Shefurthrsaidthatshehasnotcontestedanycasewith RamjanamSinghandRamdulariDevibeforethiscase.Thensheadmittedthatbefore45yearsof thiscase,thecomplainantfiledacaseagainstRamdulariDeviandthesameobjectionfiledbyher wasdismissed.Thenshewentinappealagainstthatorderwhichwasalsodismissedandthen shefiledthiscaseagainsttheaccusedpersons.Thiswitnesshasbeenfurthercrossexaminedat lengthbutnothingmaterialcameout.Itisalsofoundthatthecrossexaminationofthiswitness hasbeendeferredfornextdateandthiswitnesshasnotbeencrossexaminedlateron. 10.Pw1isRamnathSingh,whodeposedinhischiefthatAsarfideviwas marriedtoRamjanamSingharound2627yearsago.Around810yearstheaccusedRamjanam andcomplainantlivedhappily.ThenafterthedeathofhisbrotherSwarupSingh,Ramjanamkept herwifeSubhagowithhim.Ramjanamstartedassaultingthecomplainantandthecomplainant hadadaughterVimlaformtheaccusedRamjanam.In1982theaccusedRamjanamgaveallhis propertytothedaughterofSubhagoDevinamelyRamdulariDevi.Aftergettingpreparedafalse deathcertificateofcomplainanttheaccusedthrewheroutofhishouse.Itisfurthersaidthatthis witnesshasarrangedthemarriageofaccusedRamjanamSinghandthecomplainantAsarfiDevi. Thenallfouraccusedpersonsassaultedthecomplainant. Duringhercrossexaminationthiswitnesshasadmitted thatheistheuncleofDhanushdhariandRamdularihasinstitutedacaseagainstthiswitness andDhanushdhariinwhichDhanushdhariwenttojail.Itisfurthersaidthatthesisterofthe complainant ismarriedtoDhanushdhariandAsarfiDevihas herhouseatLaduivillage.He further said that in his cast many people use to perform sagai marriage with the widow of brother.HealsosaidthatRamjanamkeptSubhagoasherwifeandhewasfirstlymarriedtothe daughterofKhushinandMahtoofchecharitola,whodiedearlier.Ramjanamwasremarriedwith Asarfiafterthedeathofhisfirstwife.Hefurtheradmittedthattwocaseshavebeeninstituted againsthimandoneisfiledbyRamjanamandthesecondisfiledbyherdaughter. 11.Pw2RamsuratSinghhasalsosupportedthecaseofprosecutionand stated in his examination in chief that the accused Ramjanam Singh is his uncle and the complainant is his aunt. Ramjanam Singh has kept Subhago Devi and theyhave a daughter namely,RamdulariDeviwhowasmarriedtoSurendraKumarKaushik.Hefurthersaidthathe hasnoknowledgeaboutthefactthattheaccusedRamjanamsinghhasgivenallhispropertyto Ramdulari Devi. It is further said that accused Ramjanam has after keeping Subhago devi 4 assaultedcomplainantandthrewheroutofhishouse.RamjanamSinghhasgotpreparedafalse deathcertificateofcomplainantandthengivenallhispropertytoRamdularoDevithroughwill. Thenthiswitnesshasalsoprovedtheidentityofaccusedpersons. Duringhiscrossexaminationthiswitnesshas deposedthatAsarfiDeviishisauntandthefirstwifeofhisunclewhowasthedaughterof Khushinandhasdied.HealsosaidthatAsarfiDeviisaliveandhedon'tknowherfather'sname. Herbrother'snameisGarjanSinghwhoworksinTata.HersisterismarriedtoDhanushdhari. HefurtheradmittedthatRamdularihasfiledacriminalcaseagainsthim.Furtherthiswitness hasbeencrossexaminedatlengthbutnothingmaterialcameoutinhiscrossexamination. 12.Pw3isSitaramSinghwhodeposedinhischiefthatAsarfiDeviisthe second wife of Ramjanam Singh and Ramdulari Devi si the daughter of his sister in law. Surendra Kumar Kaushik is the husband of Ramdulari Devi. Asarfi Devi is residing in the ancestralhouseofRamjanamSinghfrompast40years.RamjanamSinghthrewheroutofhouse 15yearsagoandtheaccusedRamjanamhasillicitrelationwithSubhagoDeviandafterdeathof her husband the accused kept Subhago Devi with him. Ramjanam has also threw Vimla the daughterofAsarfiDevioutofhishouseandgiftedallhispropertytoRamdulariDevi.Ramjanam SinghaftergettingpreparedafalsedeathcertificateofasarfiDevihasappliedformutationofhis property.Thenthiswitnesshasclaimedtoidentifyallthepresentaccused. DuringthecourseofcrossexaminationthiswitnesshasdeposedthatRamjanam SinghhastwomorebrothersandRamswarupSinghishiselderbrotherandaccusedSubhagois hiswidow.SubhagoDeviwasthesecondwifeofRamswarupandhisfirstwifeLahasiaisnomore. HefurthersaidthatRamjanamkeptSubhagowithhimandtheyhaveadaughterRamdulari.He furtherdeniedthattheinformantAsarfiDeviisresidingwithhisbrotherinlawDhanushdhari

Singh. He further said that Dhanushdhari and the accused Ramjanam Singh have 24 cases betweenthem.Furtherthiswitnesshasalsobeencrossexaminedatlengthbutnothingmaterial cameoutwhichcouldberelevantforthecase. 13.Pw4isSaryuSinghwhodeposedinhisexaminationinchiefthat AsarfiDeviisthewifeofRamjanamSinghandSubhagoDeviwasthesisterinlawofRamjanam SinghandRamdulariisherdaughter.ItisfurthersaidthatAsarfiisresidingseperatelyfrom lastfouryearsastheaccusedRamjanamandotheraccusedhaveassaultedandthrewheroutof house.HefurthersaidthatsincetheaccusedRamjanamhaskepthissisterinlawSubhagoDevi with him therefore he has gifted all his property to Ramdulari and her husband. Then this witnesshasdeniedfromthefactthatAsarfiisnomore. Duringhiscrossexaminationthiswitnesshasdeposedthat RamjanamSingh'shouseisinBasanvillageandhishouseis100gajfarfromRamjanam'shouse. He further said that the sister of Asarfi Devi is married to Dhanushdhari Singh and Dhanushdhari Singh and accused Ramjanam Singh have plenty of cases between them. This witness has further said that he personally knows all the accused persons. Further nothing materialcameoutofhiscrossexamination. 14.Pw6isSatyanarainPrasad,whoistheformalwitnessandhas deposedthatthiscomplaintpetitionistypedbyBahadurtypistandAsarfiDevihasputherRTI. Rambachan singh, Advocate has put his signature and the same has been identified byhim, whichhasbeenmarkedasExibit1.ThenthiswitnesshasprovedtheformalFIRbyidentifying the signature 5 andwritingofSHO,SuryapuraP.S.WhichhasbeenmarkedasExibit2.Duringthecourseof crossexaminationthiswitnesshasdeposedthathehasnopersonalinformationregardingthe factsofthecomplaintpetitionandneitherhehasalsodeposedthatthepresentcomplaintpetition andtheformalFIRhasnotbeenpreparedinfrontofhim.Healsosaidthathecan'tsayinwhich policestationtheFIRwaslodged. 15.Pw7isRambachanSinghwhodeposedinhisexaminationinchiefthat Asarfi Devi is the wife of Ramjanam Singh and they have a daughter namely Vimla Devi. RamjanamhaskepthersisterinlawSubhagowithhimwhoisthewifeofhiselderbrother RamswarupSingh.Ramjanam andSubhagohaveadaughternamely,ramdulariDeviwhois married to Surendra. Ramjanam has transferred all his propertyto Ramdulari Devi showing AsarfiDevidead.WhenasarfiDevigotthisinformationfromCOoffice,sheaskedaboutthe matterfromtheaccusedpersons.Accusedpersonshaveassaultedherandthrewheroutofhouse. Duringthecourseofcrossexamination thiswitnesshassaidthatthesisterofAsarfiDeviismarriedtoDhanushdhariandtheinformant isnotresidingwithhim.RamdulariisthedaughterofRamjanamandtheinformanthasalsoa daughterfromRamjanamSingh.HefurthersaidthatheaccompaniedAsarfiDevitoCOoffice andtheaccuseddidnotassaultherthere.Whentheaccusedpersonshaveassaultedherthis witness was not there. This witness has further said that the police has not recorded his statementearlierandhehisgivinghisstatementforthefirsttimeinthiscourt.Furthernothing materialcameoutfromthecrossexaminationofthiswitness. 16.Afterdealingwiththeprosecutionevidencedefenceevidenceistobeconsidered. Inthisregard,Dw1RamashankarChaudharyhasdeposedinhisexaminationinchiefthathe usetovisitfrequentlyatRamjanam'splacelocatedatBasan.HefurthersaidthatRamjanamwas marriedwithAsarfiofChecharitolawhodiedalongback.InformantAsarfiisnothiswifeand sheisthesister inlawofDhanushdhari andDhanusdharihas plantedthis caseagainstthe accusedthroughinformant.DuringthecourseofcrossexaminationhesaidthatSubhagowasthe wifeofRamjanam'selderbrotherandafterhisdeathRamjanammarriedher.Hefurthersaid that he has not seen the documents relating to these facts but he has personal knowledge regardingallthis. 17.Afterdealingwiththeevidences,itwouldbeexpedienttodealitinthe lightofthechargeslevelledagainsttheaccusedpersonsandtheargumentadvancedbylearned defencecounsel. Inthisregard,toprovethechargesleveledu/s498A,420,323and

504/34IPC, thecourtisoftheopinionthatinorder toprovethesaidchargesprosecutionis mandatorilyrequiredtoprovethataccusedpersonshavecheatedtheinformantbydishonestly inducinghertotransferherpropertyandsubjectedhertocrueltybyintentionallyinsultingher inordertoprovokebreachofpeaceandalsobyvoluntarilycausinghurttoherinfurtherenceof theircommonintention.Inthiscontext,onperusaloftheevidencesavailableonrecorditappears that Pw5(informant) along with Pw1,Pw2,Pw3,Pw4 and Pw7 all have supported the case of prosecutionintheirexaminationinchief.Theyallhavestatedcategoricallyintheirexamination in chief that the informant is the legally wedded wife of the accused Ramjanam Singh and RamjanamhaskeptSubhagoDevithewidowofhiselderbrother.AfterthatRamjanamhasa daughter namely, Ramdulari Devi with Subhago and Ramdulari was married to Surndra Kaushik. Then these witnesses have statedthat accused after getting prepareda false death certificateofinformantAsarfiDevi,hastransferredallhispropertytoRamdulariDeviandhas appliedformutation.Furtherallthesewitnesseshavebeencrossexaminedatlengthbutnothing materialcameoutexceptsomeminordiscrepancieswhichcoulddemolishthecaseofprosecution. Ld.Defencecounselhasmuchstresseduponthefindingand holdinginjudgmentpassedbyld.Familyjudge,SasaraminMaintenancecaseno.03/1994.Itis submittedbytheld.Defencecounselthatthesameinformantnamely,AsarfiDevihasfileda maintenancecasein1994againsttheaccusedRamjanamSinghandthejudgmentpassedbyld. Familyjudge,SasaramhasbeenfiledwhichhasalsobeenmarkedasExibitAinthepresent case.Oncarefulperusalofthisjudgmentfiledbydefence,itisverymuchevidentthatld.Family judgehasfindandholdthattheinformantAsarfiDevihasfailedtoprovethatsheisthelegally weddedwifeofaccusedRamjanam SinghandRamjanam Singhhas successfullybeenable to provethefactthathiswifeAsarfiDevi whowasofChecharitolaisdead.Thisfindingofld. FamilyjudgethatthewifeofaccusedRamjanamSinghnamelyAsarfiDeviofChecharitolais deadandtheinformantofthepresentcaseisnotthelegallyweddedwifeofaccusedRamjanam Singh,hasprovedtobefatalfortheprosecution'scase.Asthewholestoryoftheprosecutionis basedontheprefacethattheinformantisthelegallyweddedwifeoftheaccusedRamjanam SinghandhehasafterkeepingSubhagohassubjectedhertocrueltyandaftergettingafalse deathcertificatetransferredallhispropertytoRamdulariDevi.Butsincetheld.Familyjudge hasholdinhisjudgmentthatthewifeofRamjanamSinghnamely,AsarfiDevihasdiedalong backandthepresentinformantisnothiswife,hastotallywipeoutthecaseofprosecution.Since theinformantisnotthewifeofaccusedRamjanamSingh,thereforethequestionofcheatingher byproducingfalsedeathcertificateorsubjectinghertocrueltyorvoluntarilycausingherhurtor dishonestlyabusingherdoesnottoarise.Sothisfactraisesagreatdoubtastowhetherthe accused persons are guilty or not and the benefit of doubt must go in favour of the accused persons.Therefore,havingregardtotheabovediscussedfactsandcircumstances,theprosecution has not been able prove the fact of cheating, subjecting the informant to cruelty, abuse and assaulttotheinformantbytheaccusedpersonsbeyondtheshadowofallreasonabledoubtsand thus,thecourtisoftheopinionthatthechargesu/s498A,420,323and504/34IPChasnotbeen provedagainsttheaccusedpersons. Accordingly,allfouraccusedpersonsnamely,RamjanamSingh,SubhagoDevi, RamdulariDeviandSurendraKumarKaushikarenotfoundguiltyandtheyareacquittedforthe chargesleveledagainstthemu/s498A,420,323and504/34IPC.Theyandtheirbailorsarealso dischargedfromtheliabilityoftheirrespectivebailbonds. Thisjudgmentwasselftypedandcorrectedbymeand pronouncedbymeintheopencourttoday.

(RajeshPandey) J.M.1stClass,Bikramganj Rohtas

dated18thdayofFebruary2012