Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 390 (MP)

Sagar Bai v. Rambharose

2014-04-05

N.K.GUPTA

body2014
Judgment N.K. Gupta, J.:- The appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 31.5.2012 passed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge Sehore, District Sehore in Criminal Appeal No. 92/2011 whereby the appeal was allowed and the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 were acquitted from the charge of Section 498-A of I.P.C. The facts of the case in short is that the complainant/appellant was wife of the respondent No. 1 Rambharose who, had lodged an F.I.R. Ex. P/1 at Police Station Ichawar on 18.8.2008 that in marriage, appropriate dowry was given by her father. She had a son of four years of age and she was ousted from the family of her husband since last six months. The respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 had harassed her physically and mentally for demand of dowry and when she was ousted still she was being harassed by them at the house of her father that for purchase of a car a sum of Rs. 50,000/- be provided to them. It was also threatened that otherwise, the complainant would be killed by burning. Threat was also given that a second marriage of the respondent Rambharose shall be observed. On the F.I.R. Ex. P/1, Police, Ichawar registered a case by the document Ex. P/2. After due investigation a charge sheet was filed before the trial Court. 2. The respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 abjured their guilt. They took a specific plea that they were falsely implicated in the matte. In defence one Mukesh Jat (DW 1) was examined. 3. The learned JMFC after considering the evidence adduced by the parties convicted the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 for offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and sentenced each of them with six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of payment of fine 8 days rigorous imprisonment was also directed. In Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 2011 the learned Second Additional Judge to the First Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 31.5.2012 reversed the judgment passed by the trial Court and acquitted the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 from all the charge. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. In Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 2011 the learned Second Additional Judge to the First Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 31.5.2012 reversed the judgment passed by the trial Court and acquitted the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 from all the charge. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. After considering the statements of the witnesses Sagar Bai (PW 1), Rewaram (PW 2), Vishnukuwar Bai (PW 3), Mahesh (PW 4), Dayaram (PW 5) and Ganesh Jat (PW 6), it would be apparent that all the witnesses are related witnesses of Rewaram, father of the complainant Sagar Bai. Rewaram has stated that the respondents were in habit to demand money and therefore, he gave a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the respondent No. 1 to open a shop of mechanic. After one year, he again gave a sum of Rs. 24,000/- to open a shop at Sehore. Again he gave a sum of Rs. 42,000/- for purchase of a Matador. Ultimately, the respondents demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. Sagar Bai (PW 1) has accepted that she went to the Police Station to lodge a written report along with her father. In the F.I.R. Ex. P/1 there is no description that Rewaram had paid the various sums to the respondent No. 1 on various occasions and therefore, it would be apparent that the statement given by Rewaram is nothing but, a falsehood which cannot be believed. 6. The witnesses Rewaram (PW 2), Vishnukuwar Bai (PW 3), Mahesh (PW 4), Dayaram (PW 5) and Ganesh Jat (PW 6) were examined to prove the incident that when the respondent No. 1 came to the house of Rewaram to leave the complainant Sagar Bai, at that time he gave a threat to Rewaram and Sagar Bai by demanding a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. No such instance could be shown by Sagar Bai (PW 1) in her statements. She did not say that such incident took place at the house of Rewaram. Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that all such witnesses are telling a falsehood which is not corroborated by the complainant herself. If such a incident took place at the house of Rewaram then there was no problem to the witness Rewaram to lodge an F.I.R. against the respondents or at least against the respondent No. 1 on the same day. The F.I.R. Ex. If such a incident took place at the house of Rewaram then there was no problem to the witness Rewaram to lodge an F.I.R. against the respondents or at least against the respondent No. 1 on the same day. The F.I.R. Ex. P/1 is lodged after six months after the alleged ouster of the complainant. In that FIR, it was not mentioned that on which particular day the respondent visited the house of Rewaram to threaten the complainant and her father. Under such circumstances, the story that the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 or the respondent No. 1, went to the house of Rewaram and demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and also threatened the complainant and her father, appears to be a cooked story which cannot be believed. 7. The complainant Sagar Bai and her father have also alleged that the respondent No. 1 Rambharose entered into a second marriage with one Rukmani but, no eye witness of that second marriage was examined and therefore, facture of second marriage was not proved by the complainant to show the cruelty done by the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. 8. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it would be apparent that the complainant Sagar Bai is living in her parents house on her own and she could not prove that the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 have done any cruelty with her at any stage or they demanded dowry from her. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 from the charge of Section 498-A of I.P.C. because the complainant could not prove her case beyond doubt. On the other hand so many concocted facts were told by the witnesses before the Court of Magistrate. Since there is no basis by which any interference can be done in the judgment passed by the appellate Court, The appeal filed by the applicant under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be accepted. Consequently, it is dismissed by confirming the judgment dated 31.5.2012 passed by the learned Additional Judge to the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore in Criminal Appeal No. 92/2011. Copy of the judgment be sent to both the Court below along with its record for information.