Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 473 (RAJ)

Meera Bai v. State of Rajasthan

2016-04-04

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 12.02.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 64/2015, whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused-respondent from the offences punishable under sections 376, 420 and 406 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant filed a written complaint at Women Police Station, Hanumangarh on 10.08.2013 stating therein that accused-respondent-Sunil is the son of her real aunt (her father's sister) and they used to visit the house of each other and fell in love. It is further submitted that upon knowing this, their family members decided to solemnize marriage of them. After attaining the age of 18 years by the appellant, her parents asked the parents of accused-respondent for their marriage and they fixed the date of marriage as 17.02.2012. It is alleged that the cards of the marriage were also printed, however, just few days before the marriage, Sunil filed an application for stopping his marriage as he did not complete 21 years of age and on account of that, their marriage could not be solemnized. It is alleged that the accused-respondent used to visit her house frequently and despite refusal by her, he used to do sexual intercourse with her repeatedly on the pretext of marriage with her and whenever she refused to do the same, the accused-respondent assured her that since they are going to marry after few months, she need not to be afraid. It is further alleged in the complaint that when the accused-respondent attained the age of 21 years, parents of appellant asked the parents of accused-respondent for solemnizing the marriage, then the parents of the accused-respondent called them to perform Teeka ceremony as per their customs, upon which her parents purchased a motorcycle, double bed, sofa set etc. and gave the same to them. and gave the same to them. It is also alleged that after passing of one month, when her parents asked the parents of the accused-respondent to fix the date of marriage, then the accused-respondent said that he is studying in B.A. Ist Year and he would solemnize marriage with the appellant after completion of examination of B.A. Ist Year, however, even after the completion of said examination, the accused-respondent did not solemnize marriage with her and ultimately on 20.07.2013, he refused to marry her and said that he was passing time with her and whatever he wanted, he did and he would not marry her. It is further alleged that on 25.07.2014, a Panchayat was called with the parents of accused-respondent and other persons, however, before the Panchayat also, the accused-respondent Sunil, his mother and father had refused for marriage and also refused to return the property handed over to them in Teeka ceremony. It is also alleged that by giving false promise of marriage, accused-respondent-Sunil had rapped her and also misappropriated the property given in Teeka ceremony. 3. On the basis of written report filed by the appellant, FIR No. 210/2013 was lodged at Women Police Station, Hanumangarh for the offences punishable under sections 376, 420 and 406 IPC and after investigation, police has filed charge-sheet against the accused-respondent for the aforesaid offences. The trial court has framed charges against the accused-respondent for the offences punishable under section 376, 420 and 406 IPC. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution had produced as many as 19 witnesses. The statements of accused-respondent were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial court after analysing the prosecution evidence has acquitted the accused-respondent for the offences punishable under sections 376, 420 and 406 IPC. 5. Being aggrieved with this, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that from the statements of prosecution witnesses particularly PW.1- appellant, PW.3 Om Prakash, father of the appellant, PW.2 Rano Bai, PW.4 Raja Ram and PW.7 Krishna Ram, it is clear that the accused-respondent has sexually assaulted the appellant by giving false promise of marriage and he has also committed offence of breach of trust by misappropriating the property given to him during Teeka ceremony. Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW.2 and the other witnesses, however, the trial court without appreciating the said peace of evidence in right perspective has illegally acquitted the accused-respondent for the offences punishable under sections 376, 420 and 406 IPC and, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the accused-respondent is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under sections 376, 420 and 406 IPC. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and argued that the learned trial court has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment, therefore, the appeal preferred by the appellant is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the impugned judgment. 9. The trial court has discussed the evidence produced by the prosecution in detail. After taking into consideration the statement of appellant (PW.1), the trial court has given finding that from the said statement, it is clear that the marriage of the appellant and the accused-respondent was not solemnized at any point of time, however, in her statement recorded before the trial court on 06.01.2015, the appellant declared herself as wife of the accused-respondent. In her statement, she has stated that the incident had taken place 1-½ – 2 years ago and, therefore, it can be presumed that the incident took place on 06.01.2013, however, in her complaint Ex.P/1 filed on 17.02.2012, she has stated that even after refusing to marry her, accused-respondent-Sunil sexually assaulted her from time to time and this is serious contradiction. The trial court has further observed that it has not been explained by the appellant in her statement that when and where the Teeka ceremony had taken place. The trial court has also observed that though the property allegedly delivered to the accused-respondent and his family members in the Teeka ceremony has not been recovered by the police but the appellant has never complained about the same to the higher officials of the police or to the court. She has also stated in her statement that the complaint was not written by her but her father has got it prepared and she has only signed on the said complaint. She has also stated in her statement that the complaint was not written by her but her father has got it prepared and she has only signed on the said complaint. The trial court has further observed that the appellant in her statement has admitted that on 01.07.2013, her father filed an application before the Women Safety and Advisory Centre, wherein it is written that marriage of his daughter was solemnized with accused-respondent-Sunil a year before and he is harassing her for dowry. Learned trial court has also observed that in her statement, the appellant has admitted that whenever Sunil has visited her house, someone of the family members always remained there. Learned trial court has further observed that father of the appellant has admitted that he has moved an application before the Women Safety and Advisory Centre, Hanumangarh but he denied that in that application it has been written that his daughter was married to respondent-Sunil and he is harassing her for dowry. The trial court has observed that father of the appellant PW.3 Om Prakash has admitted in his statement that if the accused Sunil would have married to his daughter, he would not have filed this case. Learned trial court has also discussed the evidence of other prosecution witnesses and found that there are serious contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the same are not reliable. It has been observed by the trial court that almost all relatives of the appellant have specifically stated that if Sunil would have married to the appellant, they would not have filed this case against him. The trial court has also observed that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the accused-respondent had instigated the appellant or her father to deliver the motorcycle and other articles during Teeka ceremony, on the contrary, this fact has come on record that respondent himself filed an application for stopping his marriage. The trial court has also observed that there is no evidence available on record to suggest that the motorcycle and other articles were ever handed over to the accused-respondent by the father of the appellant and therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant has committed any offence punishable under section 406 IPC. 10. The trial court has also observed that there is no evidence available on record to suggest that the motorcycle and other articles were ever handed over to the accused-respondent by the father of the appellant and therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant has committed any offence punishable under section 406 IPC. 10. After carefully going through the judgment passed by the learned trial court, this Court is also of the opinion that when the prosecution has failed to produce cogent and reliable evidence to prove the guilt of the accused-respondent for commission of offences punishable under sections 376, 420 and 406 IPC, the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. Hence, there is no force in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.