Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
2025.05.03 16:43:34 -0100 Pushpa & Ors. V. State & Anr.
used to come in drunken condition and gave beatings to the complainant and also mentally harassed her on 18/11/2021 and 19/11/2021. Even if the allegations made by the complainant are taken to be gospel truth, even then, the allegations are only against the husband of the complainant and not against the revisionists. There are vague and general allegations against the revisionists in the whole charge-sheet as well as in the complaint. The complainant/ respondent no.2 is still living in the matrimonial home in separate portion. It is the second marriage of the complainant/respondent no.2 and first marriage of the accused Sandeep Yadav. Marriage was solemnized in a very simple manner and no demand of dowry was ever made by any of the revisionists. Allegations of demand of dowry are not specific, whereas complainant/respondent no.2 alleged that all istridhan and jewellery are in the custody of the husband and in-laws. Complainant/respondent no.2 is still residing in the matrimonial home and all istridhan and jewellery are lying with the complainant/respondent no.2. Marriage of the revisionist no. 5 was solemnized in the year 2014 and she is residing in her matrimonial home and she occasionally visit her parental home. Complainant/respondent no.2 has levelled false and omnibus allegations against the revisionist no.5 and falsely implicated her. There are no date and details, when revisionist no.5 came to her parental home and there are no specific allegations of committing any cruelty upon the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.03 16:45:48 -0100 Pushpa & Ors. V. State & Anr.
she made the call at 100 number. It is also mentioned that she alongwith her son is residing at the top floor of matrimonial house. It is also mentioned that all her jewellery and some istridhan are in the possession of her husband and in-laws and remaining istridhan are lying in her room. It is also mentioned that her husband and in-laws have not returned her istridhan despite demand.
It is mentioned in the complaint dated 23/11/2021 that her istridhan and dowry articles were distributed by her father-in-law, mother- in-law, brother-in-law (Jeth), sister-in-law (Jethani) and sister-in-law (Nanad) between them. On the other hand, it is mentioned in the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant that her all jewellery were kept by her mother-in-law and she did not return the same despite demand. Averments as mentioned in the complaint and statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. are contradictory in this regard. Even, in the complaint dated 23/11/2021 and statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C., date, month and year of the same have not been specified by the complainant, when the jewellery/istridhan were distributed or kept by the accused persons.
in-law, brother-in-law (Jeth), sister-in-law (Jethani) and sister-in-law (Nanad) between them and she has nothing. On the other hand, it is mentioned in the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant that some istridhan is lying with her in her room. Averments as mentioned in the complaint and statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. are contradictory in this regard.
Except the complaint dated 23/11/2021 and statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant, there is nothing on the record to show that jewellery/istridhan articles were/are lying with the revisionists. There is nothing on the record as to what investigation has been conducted by the IO in this regard. There is also nothing on the record to show as to what effort was made by the IO to recover the same. Charge-sheet of the present case is silent in this regard.