Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2587 (RAJ)

Vachna Ram Bheel v. Mangi Lal Bheel

2017-11-24

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. The instant Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner-complainant under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., 1973 against the judgment dated 01.10.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jalore, Camp Bhinmal in sessions case No. 90/2003(15/03) (State v. Mangi Lal), whereby the learned trial Court acquitted respondent No. 1 Mangi Lal from offences punishable under Section 498-A and 302 IPC. 2. As per facts of the case, on 24.12.2002 one of the son's namely Sendu of Smt. Amba, telephonically informed petitioner complainant that his mother has been badly beaten by his father accused/respondent No. 1 Mangi Lal and further informed that his mother Amba is required to be taken to the hospital and a request for immediate arrival in village Vada-Bhadvi, Barmer was made. 3. Upon receipt of aforesaid information, when the petitioner complainant reached to village Wada-Bhadvi i.e. matrimonial home of his sister Smt. Amba, he was shocked to see that his sister Smt. Amba was found dead. On enquiry, the persons, who were assembled there, admitted their fault and prayed to settle the dispute. 4. A report Ex.P/1 to this effect was filed by complainant petitioner Vachna Ram with the Station house, Officer, Police Station, Jhab, who on the receipt of the same registered a case vide F.I.R. No. 171/2002. After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against respondent Mangi Lal for offences under Sections 498-A, 302 IPC. In the trial, the trial Court framed charges Sections 498-A and 302 IPC to which the accused denied the charges claimed trial. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses and 15 documents were got exhibited. After recording evidence of prosecution, statements of the respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 in which the respondent No. 1 denied all the allegations levelled against him. No defence evidence was produced by the respondent. 6. The learned trial court after evaluating the evidence of the parties, vide its judgment dated 01.10.2003 proceeded to acquit the respondent from the offences under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC. The said judgment is under challenge in this petition. 7. The instant revision petition was filed way back in the year 2002 by the complainant against finding of acquittal in the impugned judgment and prayer for remanding the case back to the trial court for re-appreciation of evidence, is made. The said judgment is under challenge in this petition. 7. The instant revision petition was filed way back in the year 2002 by the complainant against finding of acquittal in the impugned judgment and prayer for remanding the case back to the trial court for re-appreciation of evidence, is made. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court has miserably failed to consider the evidence available on record in right perspective and holding that prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt with respect to demand of dowry as well as committing murder of deceased Smt. Amba. 8. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that prosecution evidence has not been considered by the trial Court, thus, the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court, is perverse. There is trustworthy evidence on record to prove the allegation of committing murder by the respondent Mangi Lal. Further, it is submitted that the whole prosecution case is based upon the testimony of Sendu Ram (PW-8), who is son of the deceased from whom the complainant Vachna Ram, got information of the incident. During the trial, the statement of PW-8 Sendu Ram were recorded, but the said witness, who is son of the deceased Amba, turned hostile. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that there is no evidence of demand of dowry, therefore, the trial court after appreciating evidence on record, acquitted the respondent. Hence, no interference is called for in this revision petition so as to quash the judgment and remit the case for re-appreciation by the trial Court. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, first of all, it is required to be observed that scope of re-visional jurisdiction is very limited under section 397 of Cr.P.C., 1973 and 401(3) Cr.P.C. wherein it is incorporated that nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. 11. In the light of the aforesaid provisions, we have perused the entire evidence of the case, as also, the finding of the learned trial court of acquittal for the purpose of remitting this case for re-appreciation. 12. 11. In the light of the aforesaid provisions, we have perused the entire evidence of the case, as also, the finding of the learned trial court of acquittal for the purpose of remitting this case for re-appreciation. 12. Admittedly F.I.R. was registered on the basis of complaint filed by PW-1 Vachna Ram at Police Station, Jhab, District Jalore on the basis of information given to him by PW-8 Sendu Ram son of the deceased Amba. In the FIR (Ex.P-1) although allegation of demand of dowry was levelled by the complainant Vachna Ram, but this allegation of demand of dowry was not found proved beyond reasonable doubt. 13. In the FIR, it is specifically stated that Sendu Ram, elder son of sister, informed him telephonically on 24.12.2002 that his mother has been killed by his father, therefore he immediately took her to the hospital for treatment, but it is very strange that PW-8 Sendu Ram, son of the deceased, turned hostile and did not support the allegation of complainant Vachna Ram. More so, he has narrated altogether different story in the Court. 14. More so, he has narrated altogether different story in the Court. 14. Following, statement has been given by the witness Sendu Ram PW-8 during trial as under:- ^^iz'u%& lp cksyuk pkfg, fd >wB\ mRrj%& lp cksyuk pkfg,A iz'u%& xokg ls iwNk x;k fd 'kiFk ysdj D;k cksyuk pkfg,\ mRrj%& xokg us dgk fd lp cksyuk pkfg,A xokg 'kiFk dk eryc le>rk gS vr% xokg dks 'kiFk fnykbZ xbZ%& ekrk e`rdk esjh ekrk yxrh Fkh ge ikap HkkbZ cfgu gS mu lcls cM+k eSa gwaA esjh ufugky eks[kkrjk esa gSA vkt ls djhc lkr vkB ekg iwoZ eSa lqcg 10 cts ?kj ls Ldwy pyk x;k Fkk Ldwy esa lkr cts ;g ;g ckr fQj crkbZA tc eSa Ldwy x;k ml oDr esjh ekrk vEck ?kj Fkh vkSj esjk firk csjs ij Fkk esjs ?kj ,oa csjk ds chp djhcu 100 ehVj gS Ldwy esa eq>s dq””ku lqcg 9&10 cts cqykus vk;k vkSj dgk fd ?kj pyks dgk fd rsjh ekWa dh rfc;r Bhd ugha gS blfy, ?kj pyks ftl ij ?kj vk;k ml le; esjh ekWa dqrj dkV dkV jgh Fkh vkSj mlus dgk fd esjk xyk nq[k jgk gS mlus dgk fd osykth oxSjg dks cqyk ys esjh xnZu nq[k jgh gS ftl ij eSus csykth] ?ke.Mk dks cqyk;kA fQj vkdj ds bu lHkh us esjh ekrk vEck ds flj ij ikuh Mkyk ml le; esjh ekrk cSBh gqbZ Fkh vkSj fQj ikuh Mkyrs gh esjh ekWa ej xbZA ekWa ejh blh lwpuk VsfyQksu }kjk eSua dgha ugha dh FkhaA esjs ekWa ds ejus dh bZRryk eSus eks[kkrjk esa ugha dh Fkh yksxksa us dh gksxhA eSus ekWa ds ejus dh lqpuk eks[kkrjk esa ugha dh FkhA** In the cross-examination made by the counsel for the accused, this witness gave following statement, which reads as under:- ^^;g dguk lghs gS fd tc eSa vius ?kj x;k rc esjh eka ftank FkhA ;g lgh gS fd esjh ekWa us eq>s ?kj tkus ds ckn ;g dgk Fkk fd mls dqarj dkVrs le; tgjhys tkuoj us dkVk gS ftlls mlds xys ,oa lhus esa nnZ gks jgk gS blfy, ekWa us mldh nokbZ Hkh yh FkhA ;g lgh gS fd tc 9 cts lqcg ?kj x;k mlds nks ?kaVs ckn esjs ekWa ds xys esa T;knk nnZ gksus ls og Lo;a ds gkFk ls tksj tksj ls xyk nck;k Fkk vkSj ml le; ekWa ds uk[kwu Lo;a ds xys ij Hkh yxs FksA ;g lgh gS fd rc og flj ds cy uhps ysVdj xyk tksj tksj ls nckus yxh ,oa iSjksa dk >Vdk nsus yxh ftlls xys ,oa iSjksa dh pksVsa vk;h FkhA ;g lgh gS fd tc eSa 9 cts ?kj x;k rc ls yxkdj tc esjh ekWa ds nnZ gksus yxk rc esjk firk esjs ?kj ij ugha vk;k FkkA esjk firk lqcg 9 cts ls igys ?ke.Mk osyk ds lkFk csjs ij FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd esjh ekWa dh rfc;r [kjkc gksus ij esjh cfgu jksrh gqbZ gekjs csjs ij xbZ tgka ij lqcg ls dke dj jgs esjs firk ekaxhyky] ?ke.Mkjke] osykjke] cyoUrk ,oa d`”.k dks ysdj gekjs vkbZ FkhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd eks[kkrjk ls esjs ekek] ukuk] oxSjg gekjs ?kj vk, rc mUgsa iwNus ij ;g crk;k Fkk fd esjh ekWa dks dksb tgjhyk tkuoj dkV x;k Fkk dkVus ls esjh ekWa dh ekSr gqbZ FkhA blfy, esjs ukuk oxSjg us ml fnu dksbZ fjiksVZ iqfyl dks ugha dh FkhA** 15. Upon consideration and perusal of the entire evidence, we are of the opinion that finding recorded by the learned trial court so as to acquit the respondent No. 1 from the charge levelled against him under Section 398A and 302 IPC do not require any interference so as to remit the case for re-appreciation of evidence while exercising re-visional jurisdiction. 16. Therefore, the instant revision petition filed by the petitioner Vachna Ram is hereby dismissed.