Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1300 (MP)

Smt. Kaushalyabai v. Kuldeep And Four Ors.

2000-12-06

S.C.PANDEY

body2000
ORDER S.C. Pandey, J. 1. This revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment dated 17.2.2000, delivered by Sessions Judge, Sagar, in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2000 arising out of judgment dated 31.1.2000, delivered by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar, in Criminal Case No. 944 of 1999. 2. The applicant/complainant has filed this revision being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 17.2.2000, whereby the Sessions Judge, Sagar has set aside the conviction and sentence of the non-applicant Nos. 1 to 4 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The non-applicant Nos. 1 to 4 were convicted and sentenced by the Trial Magistrate to undergo R.I. for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default whereof, to further undergo R.I. for six months each, under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. They were further convicted and sentenced by the Trial Magistrate to undergo R.I. for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default whereof, to further undergo R.I. for six months each, under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Sentences on both the counts were directed by the Trial Magistrate, to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the applicant had married the non-applicant No. 1 Kuldeep Dubey on 2.10.1992, at Sagar. The non-applicant No. 2 Radheshyam is father of the non-applicant No. 1 and his mother is non-applicant No. 4, Smt. Munni. Miss Renu, the non-applicant No. 3 is his sister. It was alleged by the prosecution that the non-applicant Nos. 1 to 4 were dealing with the applicant with cruelty from the very inception of the marriage. They used to beat the applicant and were always threatening her that they shall kill her by setting her to fire. It was also stated that she was not given food continuously during this period for several times. It was also alleged that the non-applicant No. 1 Kuldeep Dubey prevented the applicant from telling the events in her house to any neighbour, by threatening her that in case she told the events to the neighbours, he shall commit suicide. It was also stated that she was not given food continuously during this period for several times. It was also alleged that the non-applicant No. 1 Kuldeep Dubey prevented the applicant from telling the events in her house to any neighbour, by threatening her that in case she told the events to the neighbours, he shall commit suicide. All this cruelty was done because the applicant Smt. Kaushalya Bai had not brought sufficient dowry and it was stated that unless at least a scooter was given to the non-applicant No. 1 from her parents, the non-applicant Nos. 1 to 4 will go on harassing her. The allegation against the non-applicant No. 2 Radheshyam was that he always used to utter that in case dowry was not given by the applicant he will turn her out and get the non-applicant No. 1 Kuldeep Dubey married to another girl. 4. All the aforesaid allegations were made by the applicant on 14.12.1996 by way of a typed report when the non-applicant Nos. 1 to 4 left her in her parental home. On 2.8.1997 a crime was registered at Womens' Police Station, at Sagar against the said non-applicants under Section 498 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and accordingly, a charge sheet was filed by the police against the above non-applicants in the Court. 5. The non-applicants, on the other hand, stated in their defence that for the first four years the applicant Smt. Kaushalya Bai was residing with her parental home. She had filed a false report against them with a view that the non-applicant No. 1 Kuldeep Dubey who was living in village Saraymira, in District Kannauj, U.P., should live at Sagar. 6. The learned Sessions Judge found that although the of offence is alleged to have been committed at the matrimonial home of the applicant, there was no irregularity in the trial of the case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar and, therefore, on the ground of jurisdiction the learned Sessions Judge declined to interfere in the judgment delivered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar. However, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the non-applicant Nos. However, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the non-applicant Nos. 1 to 4 on the ground that the Investigating Officer had admitted that he had registered the offence without any investigation and it was found that the case against the above non-applicants was exaggerated by the prosecution witnesses and, therefore, it has not been proved in accordance with law that either there was a demand of dowry or commission of cruelty as has been alleged by the applicant against the non-applicant Nos. 1 to 4. The Sessions Judge, Sagar, by the impugned judgment dated 17.2.2000, accordingly, set aside the judgment dated 31.1.2000 delivered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar, and acquittal the non-applicant Nos. 1 to 4 of the charges levelled against them. 7. Looking to the reversing judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sagar, it is incumbent upon this Court to examine the material on record before disposing of this revision. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the N.As. and after going through the evidence on record, it appears to this Court that all the witnesses have stated that initially, the applicant Smt. Kaushalya Bai was living at Sagar after her marriage. Thereafter, when the non-applicant No. 2 Radheshyam retired from service, she went along with the non-applicants to village Saraymira, District Kannauj, U.P. She remained there with the non-applicants till she came back to Sagar. The learned Trial Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge have found that there is no substance in the assertion on the part of the prosecution that the applicant Smt. Kaushalya Bai went to Saraymira without any information on the part of the non-applicants to her brother. It has also been found, as a matter of fact, that Smt. Kaushalya Bai was an educated lady and, therefore, it cannot be said that she was not in a position to read and write. It appears that it was the case of the non-applicant Nos. 1 to 4 that Smt. Kaushalya Bai had fallen ill in the village Saraymira and she was got treated there. However, the documents Ex. D-l to Ex. D-3 relating to the treatment of the applicant were not relied on by the learned Trial Magistrate because these documents were not got proved by the defence by examining the person who wrote them. However, the documents Ex. D-l to Ex. D-3 relating to the treatment of the applicant were not relied on by the learned Trial Magistrate because these documents were not got proved by the defence by examining the person who wrote them. The conduct of the applicant Smt. Kaushalya Bai was, however, questioned in searching cross-examination of the witnesses and it has been found by the learned Sessions Judge that in case, for four years the applicant was given ill-treatment then there should have been some evidence on record. The applicant has denied the document Ex. D-4 which is alleged to have been written by her. In this letter, written from Saraymira, there is no mention regarding the harassment alleged to have been made by the non-applicant Nos. 1 to 4. This letter also does not show that there was any demand of dowry on the part of the non-applicant Nos. 1 to 4. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, where the learned Sessions Judge, after examining the evidence on record, has acquitted the non-applicant Nos. 1 to 4, this Court is of the view that his appreciation of evidence, cannot be held to be improper or unsatisfactory in any way, which requires interference of this Court after acquittal of the said non-applicants. This Court has gone through the evidence on record. It is not necessary to repeat all the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge in acquitting the non-applicant Nos. 1 to 4, and it is sufficient to say that this Court generally agrees with the reasons given by the Sessions Judge. I do not find this to be a case where interference of this Court is called for in the impugned judgment. 9. As a result of aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any merit in this revision and the same is liable to be dismissed as such. The revision is accordingly, dismissed.