Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2268 (RAJ)

Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2013-12-13

AMITAVA ROY

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Mr. N.L. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor Rajasthan and also Mr. R.K. Bohra, learned Counsel for the complainant. 2. The challenge is against the judgment and order dated 4.2.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No. 24/1994 sustaining the judgment and order dated 31.5.1994 passed by the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Pilibanga in Criminal Regular Case No. 714/92 convicting the petitioners under Section 498-A I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to suffer two years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/- in default to further undergo one month's R.1. 3. The facts in brief are that on 22.6.1998 the complainant Lekh Ram lodged the F.I.R with the Police Station Pilibanga to the effect that his two daughters namely Sharda and Vimla who got married with Shrawan and Aad Ram, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 respectively about six years back, were being subjected to torture for demand of dowry, whereupon the police registered a case on this report and eventually, submitted the charge-sheet against the accused-petitioners for the offence under Sections 498-A and 323 I.P.C. The petitioners denied the charges and therefore, trial followed. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses in all. The statements of the accused-petitioners were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the charges and alleged that they have been falsely implicated and that the prosecution story as set out, is fully concocted. The learned Trial Court on a consideration of materials on record, convicted the petitioners under Section 498-A I.P.C. and sentenced them as aforementioned. It, however, acquitted the petitioners of the charge under Section 323 I.P.C. Having been unsuccessful in appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Hanumangarh, the petitioners approached this Court. 4. Mr. N.L. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that meanwhile the petitioner No. 1 Hari Ram had expired and that the petitioner No. 4, mother-in-law of the alleged victim is 80 years, and that the charge levelled against the petitioners have not been proved. According to him, not only on the I active initiative of the couples involved meanwhile, they have obtained the; decree of divorce and that all their legally tenable claims have been settled they I were, for the present living peacefully. According to him, not only on the I active initiative of the couples involved meanwhile, they have obtained the; decree of divorce and that all their legally tenable claims have been settled they I were, for the present living peacefully. This state of affairs is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the complainant. The learned Public prosecutor also has no I instructions to the contrary. 5. Be that as it may, having regard to the challenge made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners to the conviction and sentence recorded against them, this Court has examined the contents of the F.I.R. as well as the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. On a thorough consideration thereof, this Court is I of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge under Section 498-A I.P.C. against the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt and that I they are entitled to the benefit of doubt qua the same. 6. In the above view of the matter, this petition is allowed. The impugned I judgment and order is interfered with. Petitioners are relieved of the bail bonds.Revision allowed. *******