Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2362 (ALL)

MANJU SINGH RATHOR v. STATE OF U. P.

2018-11-20

HARSH KUMAR

body2018
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Harsh Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Brahm Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been moved for leave to file appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 14.9.2018 passed by 14th Additional Session Judge, Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2017 (Smt. Dharma Devi and others v. Manju Singh Rathor). 3 The brief facts of the relating to the case are that the appellant lodged a F.I.R. at Case Crime No. C-6 of 2001, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act against her in-laws except husband. Upon investigation charge-sheet was submitted and upon recording evidence, the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi vide judgment and order dated 18.7.2017 in Criminal Case No. 3251 of 2012 convicted all the accused-persons under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC and sentenced accordingly. Feeling aggrieved, the convicted accused-persons preferred criminal appeal before the Sessions Judge, Varanasi, which has been decided by the impugned judgment and by the impugned judgment, the appeal was partly allowed and the judgment order passed by Magistrate was partly set aside. The Appellate Court setting aside the conviction of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 under Sections 498-A IPC affirmed their conviction for the offences under Sections 323 and 506 IPC and modified the sentence by releasing them on probation for a period of six months. Feeling aggrieved, the first informant has preferred this appeal against the acquittal part of the impugned judgment, acquitting the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that it is fully proved from the evidence on record that respondent Nos. 2 to 5 alongwith her father-in-law Jamuna Rathor (since deceased) and Jethani Smt. Meena Singh (since deceased), since the date of her marriage 21.5.1998 with Dhirendra Rathor, treated her with cruelty for bringing lesser dowry and passed comments; that accused persons made demand of Rs. 2 to 5 alongwith her father-in-law Jamuna Rathor (since deceased) and Jethani Smt. Meena Singh (since deceased), since the date of her marriage 21.5.1998 with Dhirendra Rathor, treated her with cruelty for bringing lesser dowry and passed comments; that accused persons made demand of Rs. 50,000/- cash and two tolas gold ring as well as gold chain and threatened that else she will be burnt to death and they will re-marry Dhirendra to obtain dowry worth Lakhs of Rupees; that it was proved from the evidence on record that on 26.9.2000, the accused-persons attempted on her life causing grievous injuries and ousted her and her husband after beating; that the first informant in her statement on oath has stated that she was being treated with cruelty since after three months of marriage and she was deprived of food and no treatment was provided on her getting ill; that the learned trial Court had rightly convicted the accused-persons for the offence under Sections 498-A, 323/149 and 506 IPC but the learned Appellate Court vide impugned judgment has acted wrongly and illegally in holding that there was no demand of dowry or no cruelty for non fulfilment of demand of dowry, rather there was partition dispute between the husband of first informant and his brothers on account of which he has got the F.I.R. lodged by his wife under Section 498-A IPC etc. to settle the score; that findings of learned Appellate Court are perverse and against the provision of law and evidence on record; that the impugned judgment and order of acquitting the respondents for the offence under Section 498-A IPC is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned AGA supported the impugned judgment and order. 6. Upon hearing parties counsel and perusal of record, I find that appellant in order to prove her case has produced as many as case 7 witnesses of fact and two formal witnesses including pharmacist and Investigating Officer. P.W.6 and P.W.7 are first informant/victim and her husband Dhirendra Singh while P.W.1 to P.W.5 are neighbours of her matrimonial house, who in their statements on oath before the Court have not supported the prosecution case and have stated that there was no demand of dowry by family members of the husband of first informant. All the five witnesses have been declared hostile, but in cross-examination by prosecution nothing material has come out. All the five witnesses have been declared hostile, but in cross-examination by prosecution nothing material has come out. The learned Appellate Court has rightly observed material contradictions in the statements of first informant and her husband as well as undisputed fact that family partition did take place on 25.4.1999 (after marriage of first informant with Dhirendra on 21.5.1998) between Dhirendra and his brothers, namely, Radhey Shyam, Jogendra and Nagendra in presence of witnesses which was reduced into writing on stamp papers. The trial Court as well as appellate Court have found simple injuries allegedly sustained by the first informant and there is no grievous injury to infer attempt on her life. The arguments of learned counsel for the appellant that appellant was subjected to cruetly after three months of marriage is not supported by any reliable or independent evidence and there are material contradictions between the averments made in complaint and statements of P.W.6 and P.W.7. In view of the evidence on record, learned appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the trial Court has acted wrongly in convicting the accused-persons for the offence under Section 498-A IPC also and the accused-persons are liable to be acquitted and consequently has partly allowed the appeal. 7. In view of the above material contradictions, I find that the reasoning given by the learned trial Court is cogent and there is no manifest error of fact on law or any perversity, which may require interference by this Court. It is not the case of applicant that the learned trial Court failed to consider any evidence, which was there on record. 8. Perusal of record shows that the impugned judgment rendered by the trial Court is absolutely flawless since he has analyzed the evidence in great detail and appreciated them in correct perspective. The trial Court has ascribed cogent reasons for not placing reliance on the untruthful testimony of complainant and her witnesses. In such a fact situation, High Court is not advised under law to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. 9. It is settled principle of law as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of K. Prakashan v. P.K. Surenderan, (2008) 1 SCC 258 “When two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the Judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. 9. It is settled principle of law as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of K. Prakashan v. P.K. Surenderan, (2008) 1 SCC 258 “When two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the Judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When Judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/misappropriation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified”. 10. In view of discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that the learned counsel for the applicant has failed to show any legal infirmity, incorrectness or perversity in the findings given in the impugned order of acquittal and there is no sufficient ground for interfering with or setting it aside the acquittal order and substituting it with conviction order. The application for leave to file appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed. 11. The application for leave to file appeal is dismissed accordingly and the appeal also stands dismissed.