Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1338 (RAJ)

Leela Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2023-07-10

FARJAND ALI

body2023
ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. The instant criminal revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner-complainant Leela Devi being aggrieved of the judgment dated 05.11.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pali in Criminal Appeal No.50/1999, whereby the learned appellate court while giving benefit of doubt to the accused-respondents reversed the judgment dated 08.04.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Marwar Junction in Criminal Original Case No.1201/1992, whereby they had been convicted and sentenced as under :- Name of the respondent Offence for which convicted Sentence and fine imposed Moolchand Section 494 IPC Rigorous imprisonment of 2 years along-with a fine of Rs.300/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days. Bharti, Mohanlal, Chothi, Gamni, Harikishan, Sita Devi, Naraini Section 494/109 IPC 2. Succinctly stated, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner-complainant Leela Devi filed a complaint under Section 494 and 494/109 IPC in the trial court stating therein that her marriage was solemnized with the respondent No.2 Moolchand at Marward Junction in the year 1965 as per Hindu rites and customs and as such, she is his legally wedded wife. Respondents Mohan Lal and Chauthi Devi are the parents of the respondent No.3 Bharti. It is alleged that despite the first wife being alive, second marriage of the respondent No.2 Moolchand was solemnized with the respondent No.3 Bharti in the year 1982 on the day of Aakhateej at Sabarkanta (Gujarat) and such an act is a penal offence under the IPC. The other respondents abetted in commission of the said offence by attending and helping in such marriage, therefore, they too have committed an offence under Section 494/109 IPC. 3. The learned trial court recorded evidence under Section 200- 202 CrPC and took cognizance against the accused-respondents. Charge was framed for the offence under Section 494 IPC against respondent Moolchand and under Section 494/109 IPC against other accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At pre-charge stage, statements of five witnesses, namely, Leela Devi (P.W.1), Bhanwar Lal (P.W.2), Bakhtaram (P.W.3), Laxman Bhai (P.W.4) and Champalal (P.W.5), were recorded. No further evidence was produced by the prosecution. The defence counsel did not cross-examine the above witnesses. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 CrPC, in which they denied having committed any offence. No evidence was produced in defence. No further evidence was produced by the prosecution. The defence counsel did not cross-examine the above witnesses. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 CrPC, in which they denied having committed any offence. No evidence was produced in defence. After appreciating the evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned trial court vide judgment dated 08.04.1999 convicted and sentenced the accused-respondents as noted above. 4. Being aggrieved of the conviction recorded and the sentence awarded, the accused-respondents preferred an appeal. The learned appellate court after re-appreciating the evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties allowed the appeal, reversed the judgment of the trial court and acquitted all the accused-respondents from the charges. Being aggrieved by judgment in appeal, the complainant has preferred the instant revision petition under Section 397/401 of the CrPC. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court after apropos appreciation of the evidence available on record recorded the finding of guilt of the accused-respondents as the offences alleged were proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, it is prayed that judgment of the appellate court may be set aside and the conviction of the accused-respondents may be upheld. 6. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 7. The learned appellate court while adjudicating the appeal minutely re-appreciated the evidence available on record. Five witnesses were examined by defence to prove the offences. So far as the marriage of the respondent Moolchand with the complainant Leela Devi is concerned, based on the statement of the witness Bakhtaram, who happens to the father of the complainant, the learned appellate court came to the conclusion that the marriage of Moolchand and Leela was solemnized as per the Hindu rites and customs in the year 1965. However, so far as the alleged second marriage of Moolchand with Bharati is concerned, the learned appellate court held that the prosecution has failed to prove the same by producing reliable evidence on record. Three out of the five witnesses, namely, Leela Devi (P.W.1), Bhanwar Lal (P.W.2) and Bakhtaram (P.W.3), have admitted that they were not present in the alleged second marriage. They heard the said fact from Pratap, Ratanpuri, Ramchandra, Heeralal, Laxman and Chunni Devi. The learned appellate court disbelieved the statement of Laxman Bhai (P.W.4) as he did not give any particular details regarding the alleged second marriage. They heard the said fact from Pratap, Ratanpuri, Ramchandra, Heeralal, Laxman and Chunni Devi. The learned appellate court disbelieved the statement of Laxman Bhai (P.W.4) as he did not give any particular details regarding the alleged second marriage. He stated that he was a teacher in the year 1982 and went to the marriage with Headmaster Barod Sahab, but as per his own statement, he was merely 17-18 years in the year 1982, thus, he could not have been a teacher at that time, therefore, his presence in the alleged marriage is doubtful. So far as Champalal (P.W.5) is concerned, the learned appellate court disbelieved his statement too because he did not give the relevant details of the alleged second marriage and also admitted in his cross-examination that he was giving the statement as instructed by the complainant and that he had cordial relations with the family of the complainant. In addition to the above, the learned appellate court also noted the fact that despite having knowledge about the alleged second marriage in the year 1982 itself, the complainant did not act till the year 1989 and no reason has been assigned for this inordinate delay. While recording these findings and giving benefit of doubt to the accused-respondents, the learned appellate court acquitted them from the offences alleged by reversing the judgment of the trial court. 8. After thorough appreciation of the material available on record, I am in concurrence with the findings recorded by the learned appellate court. The learned appellate court has prudently discussed the evidence and passed a well-reasoned order, which does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397/401 of the CrPC. Hence, the instant revision petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit.