Delhi High Court
Smt.Rajni (Deceased) Thr. Her ... vs Rajesh & Ors. on 26 April, 2011
Author: V.K.Shali
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl.Rev. P.No. 190/2011
Date of Decision : 26.04.2011
SMT.RAJNI (DECEASED) THR. HER BROTHER SH.ASHOK
KUMAR ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr.S.K.Gandhi, Adv.
Versus
RAJESH & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. O.P.Saxena, APP for the
State.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? NO
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? NO
V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)
1. This is a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner
against the order of acquittal of the respondents dated
05.10.2009 passed by the learned MM, Rohini, Delhi.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent
no.1 had got married to one Rajni (since deceased) on
13.4.1992 according to the Hindu rites and customs. On
31.12.93 and 10.3.94, the deceased Rajni had made a
compliant to CAW Cell, Ashok Vihar, Delhi that the
respondents were demanding dowry and subjected her to
cruelty. On the basis of the said complaint, an FIR no.93/94
under Section 498A/406/34 IPC was registered on 23.3.1993
by P.S. Adarsh Nagar, Delhi.
3. During the course of the investigation, the respondent no.1
had produced the dowry articles before the IO who had seized
the said articles and thereafter released them on superdari to
the deceased. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed
for the aforesaid two offences.
4. The learned Magistrate seems to have discharged the
respondents for an offence under Section 406 IPC on
22.6.2009 (wrongly recorded as 22.6.2011), a charge under
Section 498A/34 IPC was framed against the respondents
and they were put to trial. Unfortunately, by the time,
prosecution was to adduce evidence, both the complainant as
well as her father had expired. The prosecution could not
adduce any evidence against the respondents. On 5.10.2009,
Sh.Ashok Kumar, brother of the deceased wanted to place on
record a letter dated 20.9.2003 purported to have been
written by the deceased to prove that she had been subjected
to cruelty with a view to demand dowry. This request of
Sh.Ashok Kumar, the present petitioner was rejected on the
ground that the only request made by the petitioner was for
taking the said letter on record and he had not volunteered
himself to appear as a witness to prove the same. In addition
to this, the learned Magistrate had perused the contents of
the letter and come to the conclusion that in the letter, no
specific incident of cruelty was mentioned nor any specific
role was attributed to any of the respondents and therefore,
considering the totality of the circumstances, the learned
Magistrate did not deem it fit to record the statements of the
accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and acquitted all
the accused persons under Section 498A/34 IPC.
5. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order dated
5.10.2009 choose to file an appeal before the Court of
Sessions. The said appeal was dismissed vide order dated
24.9.2010. The learned Sessions Judge went into details of
the case. It had also taken note of the fact that the
prosecution did not move any application to examine
Sh.Ashok Kumar under Section 311 Cr.P.C. nor had the said
person himself volunteered to be a witness, as was noted by
the learned Magistrate. In the light of these facts, the learned
Sessions Judge had put his seal of approval on the judgment
of the learned Magistrate.
6. The petitioner still feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and
order has chosen to file the present revision petition against
the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge dated
24.9.2010.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have
perused the record.
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
PW-2 Sh.Surender Singh in his testimony has stated as
under:-
"The fact of giving Rs.27,200/- by the complainant
to the accused persons is correct as per the
statement of the complainant. It is also correct that
complainant was harassed and tortured for
bringing more dowry by the accused persons."
9. On the basis of these averments, it has been pointed out by
the learned counsel that the respondents ought to have been
convicted for an offence under Section 498A IPC and since
this has not been done, the learned Magistrate, as well as the
learned Sessions Judge have fallen into a grave error in
acquitting the accused persons.
10. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner. I do not find any merit in
the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the aforesaid statement of SI Surender Singh has proved the
guilt of the respondent of subjecting the deceased Rajni to
cruelty with a view to demand dowry. This testimony on the
part of the PW-2 seems to be more in the nature of hearsay
evidence as he had no personal knowledge about the same.
On the contrary, it is curious that as Rajni and her father had
unfortunately expired, the brother did not choose to appear
as a witness to the allegations levelled by his sister. The
prosecution had also not made any effort to summon or
examine Sh.Ashok Kumar as a Court witness. In the absence
of any cogent credible evidence, I feel that there was
absolutely no ground available to the learned Magistrate or
even for that matter to the learned Sessions Judge to hold the
Respondent guilty.
11. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find that there is
any impropriety, illegality or incorrectness either in the
judgment of the learned Magistrate dated 05.10.2009 or in
the judgment dated 24.9.2010 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
APRIL 26, 2011
RN
