Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1208 (RAJ)

Savitri v. State of Rajasthan

2015-07-01

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 28.1.2009 passed by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.3, Jaipur city, Jaipur in Cr. Appeal no. 144/2007 whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the offence under Sec.498A IPC arising out of judgment dated 14.8.2007 passed by learned Judl. Magistrate No.9, Jaipur city, Jaipur in Cr. Case no. 24/2000 whereby the trial court has convicted and sentenced the respondent no.2 under Sec.498A IPC for two years SI whereas respondent no.3 was released by giving benefit of probation on certain conditions. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that an FIR No.07/2000 was registered at Women Police Station-II, Jaipur city in which it was stated that complainant solemnized the marriage of her daughter Savitri with Nand Kishore. In the marriage, she gave sufficient amount of dowry, but after sometime, in-laws started mental torture to her and demanding dowry. It was also stated that in-laws gave threatening that if dowry is not given, they will leave her and get second marriage. After registration of the above said report, police started investigation and arrested the respondents. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet against respondents before the concerned Magistrate. The trial court took cognizance against them for offence under Sec.498A and 406 IPC and framed charges, to which the respondents denied and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial, as many as 09 prosecution witnesses were examined and certain documents were exhibited. Statement of respondents were recorded under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. After hearing all the parties, the learned trial court vide order dated 14.8.2007 held guilty respondent nos.2 & 3 for offence under Sec.498A IPC and sentenced respondent no.2 for two years SI whereas respondent no.3 was released by giving benefit of probation on certain conditions. Statement of respondents were recorded under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. After hearing all the parties, the learned trial court vide order dated 14.8.2007 held guilty respondent nos.2 & 3 for offence under Sec.498A IPC and sentenced respondent no.2 for two years SI whereas respondent no.3 was released by giving benefit of probation on certain conditions. Relevant portion of the judgment of trial court reads as under: ^^vr% vfHk;qDr uUnfd'kksj eh.kk iq= Lo0 Jh izHkkrhyky o Jherh nqxkZnsoh iRuh Lo0 Jh izHkkrhyky tkfr;ku eh.kk] fuoklh;ku xzke ck; Fkkuk [kkVw&';keth] ftyk&lhdj jkt0 dks Hkk0n0la0 dh /kkjk 406 ds vUrxZr n.Muh; vijk/k ds vkjksi ls nks"keqDr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk Hkk0n0la0 dh /kkjk 498&, ds vUrxZr n.Muh; vijk/k ds vkjksi ls nks"keqDr fd;k tkdj] vfHk;qDrk Jherh nqxkZnsoh eh.kk dks lnkpj.k dh ifjoh{kk ij NksM+k tkrk gSA ;fn vfHk;qDrk ikap gtkj :i;s jkf'k dk Lo;a dk ca/k&i= o bruh gh jkf'k dh l{ke izfrHkwfr U;k;ky; ds larks"kkuqlkj fuEu 'krksZa dh ikyuk gsrq izLrqr dj rLnhd djok ns rks nqxkZnsoh dks lnkpj.k dh ifjoh{kk ij NksM+k tkrk gS%& ¼1½ fd vkxkeh nks o"kZ dh vof/k rd og lekt esa 'kkfUr o lnkpj.k cuk;s j[ksxh rFkk dksbZ vijk/k dkfjr ugha djsxhA ¼2½ fd tc Hkh U;k;ky; ltk Hkqxrus gsrq cqyk,] og U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gksdj U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dh ikyuk djsxhA vfHk;qDr uUnfd'kksj iq= Lo0 Jh izHkkrhyky dks mDr vijk/k /kkjk 498&, Hkk0n0la0 esa nks o"kZ ds lk/kkj.k dkjkokl dh ltk ls nf.Mr fd;k tkrk gSA vfHk;qDr uUnfd'kksj }kjk nkSjkus rQ~rh'k] nkSjkus vUoh{kk iqfyl o U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa xqtkjh vof/k dks ewy ltk esa lek;ksftr dh tkosA ltk dh okjaV tkjh gksA fu.kZ; dh ,d izfr vfHk;qDrx.k dks fu%'kqYd iznku dh tkosA** 3. Being aggrieved by the said order of trial court dated 14.8.2007, the respondent nos.2 & 3 preferred an appeal before the District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur, from where it was transferred to the court of Addl. Distt & Sessions Judge No.3, Jaipur city, Jaipur who after hearing both the parties, vide order dated 28.1.2009 acquitted the respondents from the offence under Sec.498A IPC. Distt & Sessions Judge No.3, Jaipur city, Jaipur who after hearing both the parties, vide order dated 28.1.2009 acquitted the respondents from the offence under Sec.498A IPC. Relevant portion of the judgment of appellate court dated 28.1.2009 reads as under: ^^vihykFkhZx.k uUnfd'kksj eh.kk iq= Lo0 izHkkrhyky eh.kk ,oa Jherh nqxkZnsoh iRuh Lo0 Jh izHkkrh yky eh.kk dh ;g vihy Lohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ,oa n.Mkns'k fnukad 14-8-2007 tks QkStnkjh izdj.k la[;k 24@2000 ljdkj cuke uUnfd'kksj eh.kk o Jherh nqxkZnsoh vijk/k /kkjk 498&, vkbZ0ih0lh esa ikfjr fd;k x;k tks vikLr fd;k trk gS ,oa mDr nksuksa vihykFkhZx.k dks /kkjk 498&, vkbZ0ih0lh ds vijk/k esa nks"keqDr ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa vihykFkhZ uUnfd'kksj ds tekur eqpydsa o vihykFkhZ Jherh nqxkZnsoh dk lnkpj.k dh ifjoh{kk dk izLrqr ca/k&i=] fujLr fd;s tkrs gSaA** 4. Hence this revision petition has been preferred on behalf of the complainant. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has contended that the impugned judgment dated 28.1.2009 passed by learned Appellate Court is contrary to facts, evidence and law available on record. It has committed serious illegality in passing the impugned judgment by not considering the fact that accused have committed offences under Sec.498A IPC. It has also been contended that while passing the impugned Judgment dated 28.1.2009, the appellate court did not properly appreciate evidence of the victim, who is complainant in the matter and she categorically leveled allegation against the accuse by saying that she was subjected to cruelty for fulfilling the unlawful demand of dowry. It has also been contended that the appellate court has wrongly interpreted statements of witnesses regarding offence of cruelty. Hence impugned order dated 28.1.2009 be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents as also Public Prosecutor have opposed the same and supported the impugned order passed by appellate court dated 28.1.2009 and contended that the appellate court has passed the order after due appreciation of evidence and material available on record, hence revision petition should be dismissed. 7. The court's attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors. 7. The court's attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors. SC 2006 (10) Page 136 in which the Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in para 26 that "it is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below." 8. Looking to the evidence just discussed above, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused respondents and the learned trial Court was right in acquitting the accused respondents. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court as the same appears to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. It may be stated that in revision/appeal against acquittal though powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusions are as extensive as in an appeal against an order of conviction, yet as a rule of prudence, it should always give proper weightage and consideration to the views of the trial judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and thus, High Court should not ordinarily disturb the order of acquittal. 10. Accordingly, the revision petition filed by the complainant-petitioner fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by the appellate court. Revision dismissed.