Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1460 (RAJ)

Vijay Laxmi v. State

2022-05-07

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID – 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned. 2. Mr. Amit Gaur, Advocate is appointed as Amicus Curiae to argue the matter on behalf of the complainant-petitioner under the free legal aid scheme of RSLSA. His remuneration shall be paid by the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority as per the rules. 3. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner/ complainant against the judgment dated 12.02.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta in Criminal Appeal No.57/2001, whereby while allowing the appeal filed by the accused-respondents and quashing and setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.09.1997 passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.) cum Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana in Criminal Regular Case No.45/97 (State Vs. Surya Kant & Ors.), the accused-respondents were acquitted of the charge levelled against them. 3.1 The learned trial court, vide the judgment dated 01.09.1997, though acquitted the accused-respondents of the offence under Section 406 IPC, but convicted them for the offence under Section 498A IPC and sentenced them to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-each, in default of payment of which, each of the accused-respondents were to undergo three months simple imprisonment. 3.2 The prayer clause of the petition reads as under: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this revision petition may kindly be allowed; the impugned order dated 12.02.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta may kindly be quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana dated 01.09.1997 may kindly be restored.” 4. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner submits that the marriage between the complainant/petitioner and the accused-respondent No.2 was solemnized on 10.12.1994; some time thereafter, the accused-respondents (husband and in-laws) started subjecting the complainant/petitioner to immense cruelty and ill treatment, under the garb of demanding dowry articles viz. jewellery etc.; whereafter, the complainant’s father and other family member intervened, and requested the complainant’s husband and in-laws not to continue such cruelty and ill-treatment, but despite such request, the cruelty and ill treatment, coupled with the demand of dowry did not stop. jewellery etc.; whereafter, the complainant’s father and other family member intervened, and requested the complainant’s husband and in-laws not to continue such cruelty and ill-treatment, but despite such request, the cruelty and ill treatment, coupled with the demand of dowry did not stop. 4.1 Learned counsel further submits that at one point of time, when her brother came to visit the complainant at her matrimonial home, her in-laws even misbehaved with her brother. Learned counsel also submits that her in-laws even gave beatings to the complainant, as a result of which, she sustained injuries; whereafter she returned to her parents house; thereafter, she demanded return of the articles given by her parents at the time of the marriage, but the complainant’s in-laws never returned such articles. 4.2 Learned counsel also submits that thereafter, upon being approached by the complainant/petitioner alongwith the written report dated 21.12.1996, the case was registered at Police Station, Deedwana against the accused-respondents for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC; after investigation, the charge-sheet was filed, which after due trial, culminated into conviction of the accused-respondents vide judgment dated 01.09.1997 passed by the learned trial court, as above; but the said well reasoned speaking order was interfered with and quashed by the impugned judgment dated 12.02.2002 passed by the learned appellate court. 4.3 Learned counsel also submits that the learned appellate court has committed a grave error, in setting aside the well considered judgment passed by the learned trial court, despite the fact that the said judgment clearly indicates due consideration of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with due appreciation of the evidence placed on record before the learned trial court. As per learned counsel, the learned appellate court has also not taken into due consideration the fact that all the prosecution witnesses have clearly and in unequivocal terms supported by the prosecution story and the narration made by the complainant/petitioner in the aforementioned report. 4.4 Learned counsel further submits that the detailed analysis having been made by the learned trial court, while passing the judgment of conviction is further fortified from the fact that the learned trial court has, upon due appreciation of the material available on record before it, acquitted the accused-respondents of the offence under Section 406 IPC. 5. 4.4 Learned counsel further submits that the detailed analysis having been made by the learned trial court, while passing the judgment of conviction is further fortified from the fact that the learned trial court has, upon due appreciation of the material available on record before it, acquitted the accused-respondents of the offence under Section 406 IPC. 5. Though the learned Public Prosecutor is appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, but no one puts in appearance on behalf of the accused-respondents, despite the fact that the service of notice had already been effected upon them, long back, as per the office reports available in the file. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner at length as well as perusing the record of the case, alongwith the impugned judgment passed by the learned appellate court, this Court finds that the learned appellate court has made due consideration of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, before passing the impugned judgment of acquittal in favour of the accused-respondents. 7. This Court also finds that the learned appellate court has rightly recorded in the impugned judgment that the version of the complainant/petitioner, as placed by her during the course of the trial, was quite inconsistent, rather appears to be an afterthought, and such allegations, as levelled, were nothing but an attempt to implicate more and more persons in the criminal proceeding; though such an attempt, as reflected from the impugned judgment, found favour with the learned trial court, but the same was set at naught by the learned appellate court vide the impugned judgment. 8. This Court is conscious of the fact that though the offence under Section 498-A IPC is a continuing offence, but as recorded in the impugned judgment, apart from several inconsistencies and discrepancies in the version of the complainant/petitioner during the course of the trial, it is also a matter of record that the testimony of a witness, who threw some light over the version of the complainant petitioner, which if clearly substantiated, may prove to be fatal to the case of the accused-respondents; but the said testimony, as per the record and the impugned judgment, was not supported even by the complainant herself; and such contradiction was clearly detrimental to the case of the prosecution and the version of the prosecution. Thus, on that count also, the impugned judgment is perfectly justified; this is more so when the learned trial court, only on the basis of the testimony of only one witness, convicted and sentenced the accused-respondents, as above. 9. Apart from what has been mentioned hereinabove, the learned appellate court also recorded in the impugned judgment that the version of the complainant/petitioner did not reveal any specific mention as to when and by whom the demand of dowry was made and who and when caused the injuries to her. 10. Furthermore, as per the impugned judgment, the complainant/petitioner never resided in her matrimonial home continuously for a long time; very often she used to go and stay for a long time at her parents home; she also could not give any satisfactory explanation as to why the report was not lodged by her at Jaipur itself (place where her matrimonial home was situated); all such discrepancies, amongst others, clearly tilts in favour of the accused-respondents, and thus, the learned court has rightly reversed the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court, and hence, committed no error while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal in favour of the accused-respondents. 11. In view of the above, this Court does not find any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned appellate court, so as to warrant any interference by this Court. 12. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.