Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1282 (RAJ)

Renuka v. State of Rajasthan

2017-05-18

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved with the judgment dated 22.07.2015 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kherwara, District Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) in Regular Criminal Case No. 35/2015, whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the charges against the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC are sufficiently proved before the trial court by the prosecution, however, the trial court has erred in acquitting the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 4 vide impugned judgment. It is contended that the appellant PW-1 Renuka in her statement has specifically stated that the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 4 used to harass her for less dowry and they have thrown her out from their house when the dowry was not given to them. It is also contended that PW-2 Kanku and PW-3 Bhagwana, mother and father of the appellant respectively, have also supported the version of the appellant, however, the trial court has not relied their testimony only on the basis of minor contradiction. It is further contended that the Investigating Officer has verified the investigation conducted by him, whereas he has recovered stridhan of the appellant and from the above piece of evidence, it is clear that the charges against the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC is proved. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 4 be convicted and suitably punished for the offences, for which they have been charged by the trial court. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have argued that from bare reading of the evidence of PW-1 Renuka, PW-2 Kanku, PW-3 Bhagwana, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 4, for which they have been charged by the trial court, therefore, the trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 4 vide impugned judgment. 4. 2 to 4, for which they have been charged by the trial court, therefore, the trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 4 vide impugned judgment. 4. Heard leaned counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinizing the record. 5. PW-1 Renuka, in her court's statement, has specifically stated that she has not narrated anything about her ill treatment to her family. She has also stated that the complaint, filed on behalf of her before the trial court on the basis of which criminal prosecution has been lodged against the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 4, was not dictated by her and the same was prepared by her brother. She has also admitted that the contents of the complaint have not been read over to her at the time of filing of the same. She has also stated that the dispute between her and her in-laws arose around 5 years back. 6. PW-2 Kanku, mother of the appellant, though, in her examination in chief, has alleged that the husband of her daughter i.e. respondent No. 2 used to beat the appellant and whenever he visited her house, he demanded dowry, however, in her cross-examination, she has stated that the respondent No. 2, husband of the appellant, has not assaulted her daughter in front of her at any point of time and also not demanded any dowry from her. 7. PW-3 Bhagwana, father of the appellant, has not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile. In his police statement, he has specifically stated that whatever dowry he gave, at the time of marriage of his daughter, was given as per his own will. He has not stated that the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have ever demanded dowry or harassed her. 8. Looking to the above piece of evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC, therefore, the trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 4 vide impugned judgment. 9. In view of the above discussions, this criminal appeal is dismissed.