Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Rajendra Kumar And Others on 8 July, 2019
Bench: Aniruddha Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 76
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 4219 of 2002
Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Rajendra Kumar And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri R.K. Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the impugned judgment.
2. This Government appeal has been preferred under Section 378 Cr.P.C. alongwith application for leave to appeal against judgment and order dated 18.5.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Basti in Criminal Appeal No.36 of 2000(State vs. Rajendra Kumar and four others), Police Station Kotwali, District Basti acquitting opposite party Nos. 1 to 5 namely, Rajendra Kumar Vishwakarma, Jitendra Kumar Vishwakarma, Surendra Kumar Vishwakarma, Smt. Dulari and Prem Shankar under Section 498-A IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and order dated 2.11.2000 passed by CJM, Basti in Criminal Case No.3410 of 1998 was set aside.
3. Learned Brief Holder submitted that impugned judgment and order acquitting accused-opposite parties is wholly illegal, perverse and bad in the eyes of law, hence is liable to be set aside.
4. According to prosecution case,complaint was filed by Dr. K.L. Sharma against opposite parties alleging that marriage of Neena Sharma (daughter of first informant) was solemnized with Rajendra Kumar on 17.2.1995 but they used to torture her for non-fulfilment of demand of Maruti car. Hence Neena Sharma left her matrimonial home on 25.12.1997.
5. Case was registered and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted against opposite parties. After framing of charge, prosecution examined P.W.1 Neena Sharma, P.W.-2 Dr. Khoob Lal Sharma, P.W.3 Sharad Chandra Srivastava, P.W.4 S.I. Anjani Kumar Upadhyay and P.W.5 Jhakari Singh. From the side of accused D.W.-1 Durga, D.W.2 Krishna Kumar Pandey, D.W.3 T.H. Siddiqui, D.W.4 Arjun Kumar, D.W.5 Rajendra Kumar Vishwakarma were examined. Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After hearing learned counsel for accused as well as Counsel for the State order dated 2.11.2000 was passed by CJM, Basti in Criminal Case No. 3410 of 1998 whereby Rajendra Kumar Vishwakarma, Smt. Dulari and Surendra were convicted under section 498-A IPC and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each. Prem Shankar was sentenced to two years' R.I. with fine of Rs.50,000/- under section 498-A IPC. Jitendra Kumar was sentenced to one year's R.I. with fine of Rs.20,000/- under section 498-A IPC. All accused were convicted under section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to six-six months' R.I. with fine of Rs.1000-1000/- each. Against order dated 2.11.2000, Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2000 was preferred which was allowed and opposite parties were acquitted vide impugned judgment & order dated 18.5.2002. Hence this appeal.
6. From perusal of record, it also transpires that before the incident, one suit No. 3 of 1998 (Rajendra Kumar Vishwakarma vs. Neena Sharma) was filed by husband Rajendra for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife in the Court of Civil Judge(Senior Division), Basti wherein compromise took place between the parties. The evidence of witnesses of fact was not wholly reliable. There was exaggeration and improvement on several points. No independent witness was produced. All witnesses were interested witnesses. Hence proper scrutiny is necessary. P.W.3 was chance witness and his presence was doubtful. So-called demand of Maruti car was found false. Story narrated by prosecution was found unnatural. No reliable evidence was produced by the prosecution for torture and harassment and no injury was found on the body of Neena Sharma.
7. It is also pertinent to mention here that since incident is of 1997 and 21 years have elapsed, no fruitful purpose would be served in issuing notice to opposite parties.
8. This Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. View taken by lower Court is plausible view, hence no interference is called for in Government appeal.
9. In above backdrop, leave to appeal is rejected and consequently, Government appeal is dismissed at the admission stage on merit.
10. Copy of this order alongwith record of lower Court, if any be transmitted to the Court concerned within a week.
Order Date :- 8.7.2019
P.P.
