HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 19 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4960 of 2005 Revisionist :- Smt. Munni Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ramesh Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 28.09.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, (J.D.) Chakia, Chandauli in Criminal Case No. 114 of 1999 (State Vs. Ram Charittar and others) in criminal case no. C4 of 1998 under Section 498A, 323,506 IPC and 3/4 D.P.Act, ps- Naugarh, Chandauli, by which four accused persons of the said trial were acquitted.
2. Complainant Munni Devi (present revisionist) had moved application under Section 156(3) CrPC which was allowed and case crime no. C4 of 1998 was registered as four accused persons, namely, Ram Charitra, Sitaram, Jamuna and Ram Dulari. After investigation, police had submitted chargesheet against them for the offence under Section 498A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act. , for which they were charged.
3. The prosecution case in brief was that complainant Munni Devi (PW-1) was married five years ago with Ram Charittar Yadav. After this marriage, her husband Ram Charittar, father-in-law Sita Ram, mother-in-law Ram Dulari and Jamuna Yadav had been treating her with cruelty for demand of dowry and for that reason on 24.10.1998 at about 10:00 a.m. accused had beaten her, snatched her minor daughter and expelled her from their house.
4. In support of the charges, prosecution side had examined PW-1 Munni Devi (complainant), PW-2 Prem Nath, PW-3 Sahjade, PW-4 Girja Dhobi, PW-5 Rajiv Ranjan Maurya (I.O.) and PW.-6 Parsuram Pandey. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under section 313 CrPC was recorded in which they had denied the allegations against them as well as charged incident and stated that false evidence was adduced against them due to enmity. They had adduced DW-1 Loknath, DW-2 Ram Lacchhan as well as documentary evidence in their defence.
5. The trial court had afforded opportunity of hearing to the parties and thereafter passed the impugned judgment dated 28.09.2005 by which all the four accused (present respondent nos. 2 to 5) were acquitted of all the charges. Aggrieved by this judgment, complainant Smt. Munnit Devi had preferred present revision.
6. Heard Sri Ramesh Rai, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the respondents and perused the records.
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that though there are some contradictions in statement of sedateness of fact but all contradictions are not prejudicial to prosecution case, if they are not on relevant points. He contended that delay in lodging the FIR in such a matter is immaterial because if several disputed position of prosecution emerges. He also pointed that in this case marriage of revisionist/wife with Ram Charittar is proved as well as admitted , and it is also proved that other accused are his family members. There is specific evidence of cruelty due to demand of dowry which is supported by evidence of independent witnesses but trial court had not properly appreciated evidence and gave finding of fact on the basis of the presumptions and conjunctures which are not admissible in evidence. The trial court had not disclosed as to why statement of the victim was disbelieved. He also pointed out that defence witnesses are neighbours of the accused respondents. Therefore, their testimony is not believable and impugned judgment is erroneous which should be quashed and should be allowed.
8. Learned AGA contended that prosecution evidences in this case are mostly on the basis of hearsay. There is contradiction of every point in prosecution evidence. PW-2, PW. 3 and PW-4 could not prove the commission of any effort in front of them and their evidences are based on either hearsay or on speculation which is not admissible in evidence even PW-1 prosecutrix had stated that she had no talks with any person since living the house of her husband till reaching his parental home. Three witnesses, namely PWs-2,3 and 4 had given evidences on the basis of their talk with prosecutrix. Learned AGA contended that judgment of trial court is based on appreciation of evidences and on the basis of correct finding, which cannot be discarded. Therefore, revision should be dismissed.
9. In the FIR (application under Section 156(3) CrPC), PW-1 had stated that the alleged cruelty and altercation with accused persons and her alleged expelling from house on 24.10.1998 at 10:00 am in morning, but during her examination, the time of charged incident wss different and was stated in evening. The trial court had rightly mentioned in the judgment that there may be difference in statement of exact timing by villager but difference of time from morning to evening is a material and important difference. The prosecution case was that alleged altercation and charged incident was witnessed on 24.10.1998 by Pws 2,3, and 4 side who had stated that after the incident, prosecutrix Munni Devi was coming from the husband's house and going to her parental village, then in the way, they had asked her the reason of her crying. Then she informed them that her husband and his family members had beaten her and expelled from house due to demand of dowry. But PW-1 prosecutrix herself had stated that she had not meet any person for being expelled from house of her husband till her reaching to her parental house. PW-3 is the resident of 2 kms away from the place of incident. PW-4 had stated that he had met the prosecutrix in the way when he was going with PW-3 Sahjadey. PW-4 had also specifically stated that the fact of expelling the prosecutrix from her house had come to his knowledge on the basis of information given by other villagers.
10. After appreciation of these evidences and their appreciation, trial court had found the prosecution version doubtful and unbelievable. The trial court had also discussed the oral defence evidence of DW-1 Loknath and DW-2 Ram Lacchhan who are neighbours of the respondents and appears to be proper knowledge of their relations. These witnesses supported the defence version and trial court had held that though their testimony is believable, but inspite of it if their testimony is rejected in that case also prosecution case is not proved. The trial court had also discussed oral and documentary evidences and thereafter reached to the finding of fact that prosecution case and charges are not proved beyond doubt. Therefore, accused should be acquitted.
11. A perusal of the record reveals that finding of the impugned judgment are apparently acceptable and there is no apparent error or irregularity in it. In any case, there appears no perversity in the finding of the trial court. In case of 2004 S.C.C. (Cri) 164, Deb Narayan Halder vs. Anushree Halder (Smt), the Apex Court has held as under:
(at page 171) "It is well settled that the appellate or revisional court while setting aside the findings recorded by the court below must notice those findings, and if the appellate or revisional court comes to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the trial court are untenable, record its reasons for coming to the said conclusion. Where the findings are findings of fact it must discuss the evidence on record which justify the reversal of the findings recorded by the court below. This is particularly so when findings recorded by the trial court are sought to be set aside by an appellate or revisional court. One cannot take exception to a judgment merely on the ground of its brevity, but if the judgment appears to be cryptic and conclusions are reached without even referring to the evidence on record or noticing the findings of the trial court, the party aggrieved is entitled to ask for setting aside of such a judgment."
12. In case of 2002 Cri. L.J. 225; Munna Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & another" the Apex Court has held as under:
(at page 226) "The revision power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of the charge or the facts as stated in the First Information Report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. This Court in Kanti Bhadra Saha & Anr. v. State of West Bengal has held that there is no legal requirement for the trial court to write a reasoned or lengthy order for framing the charges."
13. In case of AIR 2002 S.C. 2229; Jagannath Choudhary & ors vs. Ramayan Singh & another" the Apex Court has held as under:
"Where the court concerned does not appear to have committed any illegality or material irregularity or impropriety in passing the impugned judgment and order, the revision cannot succeed. If the impugned order apparently is presentable, without any such infirmity which may render it completely perverse or unacceptable and when there is no failure of justice, interference cannot be had in exercise of revisional jurisdiction".
"It is not an appeal wherein scruitiny of evidence is possible, neither the revisional jurisdiction is open for being exercised simply by reason of the factum of another view being otherwise possible."
14. A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that learned Magistrate had appreciated the facts and evidences of the case and then after being satisfied about the fact relating to charges, had passed the judgment. From a perusal of the records it appears that conclusions of matter read by learned Magistrate are based on logical conclusions or available evidences. In these circumstances, it would be improper to quash the impugned order by substituting any other finding of the fact. There appears nothing on the basis of correctness, legality or propriety of impugned order which can be doubted. There appears no irregularity in procedure adopted by the trial court. So there is no justification for interference in the impugned judgment dated 28.09.2005. Therefore, revision fails, and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.10.2015 Sanjeev