Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 998 (RAJ)

Kamlesh v. State of Rajasthan

2012-04-19

NISHA GUPTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 27.1.2004 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar whereby accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have been acquitted for the charge under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. 2. The short facts of the case are that on 29.8.1996, the complainant- petitioner filed a criminal complaint (Ex.P-1) before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar stating therein that she and her sister Hardevi got married with Sita Ram and Ganesh respectively on 20.5.1989. When then went to their matrimonial home, the respondents have started harassing them in connection with demand of dowry. Her Sister Hardevi had died due to harassment of the respondents. A charge-sheet has been filed for the offences under Sections 304B and 498-A Indian Penal Code, against the husband of Hardevi, Ganesh and he has been sentenced for 10 years' R.I. on 27.7.1997, the present petitioner visited the house of her-in-laws and the respondent abused her throwing her from matrimonial home and refused to return the Stridhan. Hence, she lodged a complaint which was sent for investigation under Section 156(3), Criminal Procedure Code After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the respondents for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. 3. The charges have been framed against the respondent. Seven witnesses have been examined in support of the prosecution case. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court charged the accused-respondents vide impugned judgment. Hence this revision. 4. The contention of the present petitioner is that there is ample evidence that the respondents have harassed the present petitioner and there is specific allegation of demand of dowry. The learned trial Court has held that all the witnesses are interested witness and no reliance can be made on their statements. Looking to the nature of the offence only related witness could depose about the offence. There is overwhelming evidence on the record which proved the guilt of the accused-respondents and the respondents should be convicted for the offence. 5. Hear learned counsel for the respondents, perused the revision petition and considered the record of the trial Court, specially the impugned judgment. 6. There is overwhelming evidence on the record which proved the guilt of the accused-respondents and the respondents should be convicted for the offence. 5. Hear learned counsel for the respondents, perused the revision petition and considered the record of the trial Court, specially the impugned judgment. 6. The record of the case goes to show that it is admitted case of the prosecution that the complainant-petitioner Kamlesh is not residing at her-in-laws house since March, 1995 whereas this complaint has been filed on 29.8.1996, meaning thereby that after delay of 11/z years, the complaint has been filed and the incident has been narrated that the complainant has went to her-in-laws house on 22.7.1997 (sic 22.7.1996) but what occasion has arisen for the complainant to be at her-in-laws' house on that date has not been stated. 7. It is also admitted case of the prosecution that earlier a report has been lodged by the petitioner side regarding the death of her elder sister but at that time any thing has been stated regarding ill-treatment or demand or dowry in relation to the present complainant has not been shown. The present complainant has also admitted that she had not went to her-in-laws' house upto two years after the marriage. In the complaint, the incident has been stated of 22.7.1996 but the complaint has been filed after delay of more than one month i.e. on 29.8.1996. It has also been admitted in the evidence that many times panchayati have been convened to settle the matter but no independent witnesses have been produced to support the prosecution case. Even the petitioner has stated that the prosecution case. Even the petitioner has stated that her husband used to beat her in presence of the neighbours but no neighbour has been produced to support the case of the prosecution. PW-6 Banwari Lal has stated that there was no demand of dowry on the date of the marriage and the marriage has been solemnized in a congenial atmosphere. The fact has also been revealed that the husband of the complainant has submitted a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and now the petition for divorce has also been submitted. 8. The learned Court below has considered all these relevant factors and considered the totality of the evidence. The respondents have rightly been acquitted. The complaint has been lodged after inordinate delay. 8. The learned Court below has considered all these relevant factors and considered the totality of the evidence. The respondents have rightly been acquitted. The complaint has been lodged after inordinate delay. In earlier F.I.R. lodged for the death of Hardevi, no allegation has been alleged regarding demand of dowry in relation to the complainant. No independent witness has supported the prosecution story. It is true that only on the ground that the witnesses is a relative witness or interested witnesses, his testimony cannot be brushed aside but in present case the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are not trustworthy as significant additions and omissions have been done. The prosecution evidence has clearly suggested that there is a dispute regarding death of elder sister of the present petitioner and her husband has been convicted for the offence under Section 304B Indian Penal Code and relations between the parties were strain. Looking at the above, evidence of the interested witnesses complainant, father and mother of the complainant could not be relied upon in absence of corroboration from the independent witness. 9. Hence, looking to the totality of the circumstances, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 Indian Penal Code and there is no perversity or illegality in the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court.The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******