Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 468 (RAJ)

Shobha Lodha v. State of Rajasthan

2006-02-10

H.R.PANWAR

body2006
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-This criminal revision under Section 397/401, CrPC is directed against the Judgment and order dated 20.06.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pali (for short, "the Appellate Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 51/2004, whereby the Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by Non-petitioner No. 2 and set-aside the Judgment and order dated 25.08.2004 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Communal Riots), Pali (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Regular Case No. 81/2000, and acquitted the Non-petitioner No. 2 for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC. Aggrieved by the Judgment and order impugned, the complainant-petitioner has filed the instant criminal revision. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Perused the Judgment s and orders of the Appellate Court as well as of the trial Court. 3. Before the trial Court, it was a State Case, being State vs. Dinesh Raj Lodha. The State of Rajasthan neither filed any Leave to Appeal, nor appeal against the Judgment and order of the Appellate Court acquitting the Non-petitioner No. 2; however, the complainant-petitioner has filed the instant criminal revision. 4. Before the trial Court, the prosecution case was against Non-petitioner No. 2 Dinesh Raj Lodha for the offences under Sections 498-A and 495, IPC; however the trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence produced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against Non-petitioner No. 2 for the offence under Section 495, IPC and accordingly he was acquitted. However, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the Non-petitioner No. 2 for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC. On an appeal by the Non-petitioner No. 2 before the Appellate Court, the Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence and taking note of the evidence of the independent witnesses who are neighbourers of the complainant-petitioner, came to the conclusion that from the evidence on record, the offence against the Non-petitioner No. 2 punishable under Section 498-A, IPC has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 5. It appears that some dispute arose between the petitioners and Non-Petitioner No. 2 in the month of September 1994 and the petitioner left the matrimonial home. However, in the month of May 1995, she was brought back by the Non-petitioner No. 2 and they were living together. 5. It appears that some dispute arose between the petitioners and Non-Petitioner No. 2 in the month of September 1994 and the petitioner left the matrimonial home. However, in the month of May 1995, she was brought back by the Non-petitioner No. 2 and they were living together. Subsequently, according to the allegation of the petitioner, she happened to see a photograph of a lady, namely Neena, with the Non-petitioner No. 2, which gave a cause of further dispute between the parties. The matter was investigated by the police and on investigation, the police did not find the case and filed negative final report PW . 4 Sona Ram, the Investigating Officer, stated that from his investigation, no offence was prima facie established against the Non-petitioner No. 2 PW . 9 Babu Lal, though did not support the prosecution case but stated that he is a neighbourer of the parties and had never seen any quarrel between the Non-petitioner No. 2 and the petitioner. He also stated that except the petitioner, no other lady had been residing with the Non-petitioner No. 2. 6. Apart from the prosecuting witnesses, the witnesses produced in defence, viz DW . 1 Nawal Ram, DW . 2 Kundan, DW . 3 Ganpat Raj Kothari, who are reputed persons of the community and residing in the area, have stated that there had been no occasion seeing quarrel between the Non-petitioner No. 2 and the petitioner. These witnesses very specifically stated that there was no dispute with regard to demand of dowry between the parties. 7. The Appellate Court, on proper and sound re-appreciation of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the Non-petitioner No. 2 and accordingly he was acquitted of the offence. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-complainant could not point out any error or illegality in the Judgment and order impugned. On close scrutiny of the statements of the witnesses and the Judgment s and orders impugned of the Court below, in my view, the Appellate Court was justified in acquitting the Non-petitioner No. 2 of the offence. In the circumstances, therefore, I do not find any error, illegality or perversity in the Judgment and order impugned, which may warrant interference in the revisional jurisdiction. 8. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed accordingly.