Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2156 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan : Megha Ram v. Nimba Ram

2011-10-12

NISHA GUPTA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - S.B. Criminal Leave to appeal No. 19/2010 and S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 637/2009 have been filed against the judgment and order dated 16.5.2009 whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the offences under Section 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. 2. The short facts of the case are that on 8.9.2008, complainant Magha Ram filed a written complaint before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pokaran alleging therein that her sister Vidhya was married to Nimba Ram and after six months of marriage, the respondent had started harassing her sister for bringing less dowry and she was turned out of the house. A panchayat of the community was convened and after the assurance of the respondent, her sister has again been sent back to her-in-laws house and on 22.8.2008, a telephonic message has been received that the deceased has drowned in the water tank. Her body has been cremated in absence of his father. The concerned S.H.O. had not started any proceeding against the respondent. Hence he presented the complaint before the Court which was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) and after investigation, challan has been filed against the respondent. Charges have been framed against the respondent for the offence under Section 498A and 304-B I.P.C. The prosecution has examined 11 witnesses. The statement of the accused has been recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. No defence witness has been produced and after conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court had acquitted the respondent from the above offences. Hence these leave to appeal and the revision petition against order of acquittal of the respondents have been preferred. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The main contention of the present petitioner is that PW-2 Radha mother of the deceased, PW-3 Dala Ram, father of the deceased and PW-7 Magha Ram, brother of the deceased have specifically stated against the respondents that they had all harassed the deceased in connection with the demand of dowry and this fact has also been supported by the proceeding of the panchayat and the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of these witnesses and on mere minor contradictions, the respondents have been acquitted. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of acquittal. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of acquittal. The mother and brother of the deceased were present at the time of cremation but no report has been presented at that time and the present complaint has been filed after an inordinate delay and no explanation Jas been given about the inordinate delay. There are material contradictions in the statements of PW-2 Radha, PW-3 Dala Ram and PW-7 Magha Pam. The independent witnesses PW-4 Beenjal Raj, PW-5 Sona Ram, PW- 6 Jetha Ram, PW-8 Pappu Ram, PW-9 Bhanwar Singh have not supported the prosecution story. There is no allegation of demand of motor cycle and flour mill in the complaint and the statements have been improved by the witnesses. 6. Looking at the statement of PW-2 Radha, PW-3 Dala Ram and PW-7 Magha Ram, they all have specifically stated that the relation between the deceased and her husband are normal and her daughter has never stated that she had any problem at her-in-laws house. It has also been stated by these witnesses that the husband of the deceased was residing at Puna and the deceased consistently insisting that she should be also taken to Puna and due to this, she had committed suicide. They, have also specifically admitted that allegation of demand of Motor Cycle and Floor-Mill has not been stated in the original complaint Ex.P-7. PW-4 Beenjal Raj has stated that the deceased was not ever harassed in connection with dowry and at the time of marriage, no dowry has been demanded. It has been specifically stated by Magha Ram that deceased has been beaten at her-in-laws house but in cross-examination, he had admitted that there was no injuries on the body of her sister. No evidence has been produced before the trial Court that any panchayat was held prior to the death of the deceased that respondents assured that they will, treat the deceased well. The trial Court had considered the rival contentions of the parties and had appreciated the entire evidence in the right perspective. 7. Looking at the above, there is no infirmity, perversity or illegality in the reasonings and conclusion arrived at by the teamed trial Court in the impugned judgment 8. In View of the above, both, S.B. Cr. The trial Court had considered the rival contentions of the parties and had appreciated the entire evidence in the right perspective. 7. Looking at the above, there is no infirmity, perversity or illegality in the reasonings and conclusion arrived at by the teamed trial Court in the impugned judgment 8. In View of the above, both, S.B. Cr. Leave to Appeal No. 19/2009 is refused and consequently the appeal is also dismissed and S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 637/2009 is hereby dismissed.Leave to appeal, appeal and revision petition dismissed. *******