Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 755 (RAJ)

Jasoda v. State of Rajasthan

2003-05-16

H.R.PANWAR

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision petition under section 397 Cr.PC. is directed against the order dated 6.6.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chhoti Sadri, District Chittorgarh whereby the trial court acquitted the respondents for the offence under section 498-A I.P.C. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor Perused the order impugned as also the record of the trial court. 3. The trial court has considered the entire evidence produced by the parties before it and appreciated the evidence in right perspective. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, they were acquitted of the offences charged with. 4. PW 2 Jasoda lodged a complaint on 18.9.1996 against respondents No. 2 to 4 alleging therein that she was married to respondent No. 3 Jagdish Chandra on 22.5.1991. After few years of marriage, her husband an near relatives respondents No. 2 to 4 subjected to her with cruelty on account of demand of dowry. This complaint was forwarded to the S.H.O., Police Station, Chhoti Sadri for investigation under section 156(3) Cr.PC. The prosecution produced as many as 15 witnesses. From the evidence of the various prosecution witnesses, it reveals that the complainant wanted to live along with her husband separately from the other family members to which her husband did not agree and has given cause of the dispute between the parties. The occurrence was alleged to be of 15.2.1993 and the complaint was filed on 18.9.1996 and thereafter the cognisance was taken on 22.5.1997. There was no explanation for the delay and as such the trial court held that the complaint being barred by limitation as the maximum period for taking cognisance for the offence under section 498-A is three years. The trial court also appreciated the evidence led by the parties and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused-respondents. On appreciation of the evidence, the Trial court noticed that PW 2 Jasoda filed a complaint to pressurise here husband to live separately from his family members. The trial court also appreciated the evidence led by the parties and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused-respondents. On appreciation of the evidence, the Trial court noticed that PW 2 Jasoda filed a complaint to pressurise here husband to live separately from his family members. Considering the entirety of the material placed before the trial court, the trial court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused-respondents No. 2 to 4 beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted them. 5. In Ramu alias Ram Kumar & Ors. v. Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 26 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court should not be lightly exercised particularly when it was invoked by a private complaint. This Court in number of cases has reiterated this view. 6. In Bansi Lal v. Laxman Singh, (1986) 3 SCC 444 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that on an Independent scrutiny and appreciation of the evidence, the Court might not be inclined to agree with the findings of acquittal arrived at by the trial court on Its appreciation of evidence, but that by itself would not furnish any justification for the Court not only even in an appeal but also in revision for interfering with the order of acquittal. Even in appeal the appellate court would not have justified in interfering with the order of acquittal merely because it was inclined to defer from the finding of fact arrived at by the trial court on appreciation of the evidence. The revisional power of the High Court is restricted in its scope. Keeping in view the settled principle and in view of the fact that in the instant case there is no violation of fundamental principle of law or procedure, the trial court has not wrongly, shut out the evidence which the prosecution wish to produce. Nothing has been over looked by the trial court. It cannot be said that the order of acquittal suffers from glaring error or the trial court has committed manifest error of law or procedure. This being the position, no case for interference is made out. 7. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******