Mukesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5905 MP

                                 1
             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                  Criminal Revision No.1360/2022
                     Mukesh Vs. State of M.P.

Gwalior, Dated:22/04/2022

          Shri Suresh Agrawal, Advocate for applicant.

          Smt. Anjali Gyanani, Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.

This Criminal Revision under Sections 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. has

been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 7/4/2022 passed

by Additional Sessions Judge, Pichhore, Distric Shivpuri in Criminal

Appeal No.26/2017, thereby affirming the judgment and sentence

dated 4/10/2016 passed by JMFC, Khaniyadhana, District Shivpuri in

RCT No.373/2015, by which the applicant has been convicted under

Section 498-A of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo the rigorous

imprisonment of one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default

imprisonment of two months' RI.

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that according

to the prosecution case, the applicant was married to the complainant

on 26/5/2013 and it is alleged that thereafter he started harassing and

treating the complainant with cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of

demand of Rs.50,000/- and a motorcycle. It is submitted that both the

Courts below have misread the evidence led by the prosecution and

there is every possibility of reconciliation. It is submitted that the

conviction has been recorded on the basis of the evidence led by the

interested witnesses and no independent witness has been examined

so far.

3. Per contra, the revision is vehemently opposed by the counsel

for the State. It is submitted that the present is the case of

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.1360/2022 Mukesh Vs. State of M.P.

matrimonial dispute, which takes place within the four-corners of a

house and, therefore, availability of an independent witness is

remote. There is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of Laxmibai (PW-

1), who has specifically stated that immediately after her marriage,

the applicant and her father-in-law (who has died during the

pendency of the appeal) started harassing and treating her with

cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of their demand of Rs.50,000/-

and a motorcycle. The complainant-Laxmibai (PW-1) was also beaten

by the applicant and accordingly, she informed her brother-Hariram

and from thereafter, she is residing in her parental home at

Kundanpur. She further stated that even when the applicant and his

father came to have a talk for reconciliation, at that time also they

demanded Rs.50,000/- and a motorcycle. In cross-examination, she

has stated that after her marriage, she went to her matrimonial house

for 3-4 times. She admitted that in all she had stayed in her

matrimonial house for 30-35 days. However, she has stated that from

25/12/2014 she is residing separately in her parental home.

4. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that when the

complainant had stayed in her matrimonial house for 30-35 days

only, then it cannot be said that she was treated with cruelty.

5. However, the counsel for the applicant could not point out any

provision of law which requires a wife to stay back in her

matrimonial house even if she is being ill-treated by her in-laws.

From the cross-examination of the complainant-Laxmibai (PW-1), it

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.1360/2022 Mukesh Vs. State of M.P.

is clear that the applicant never made any effort to bring her back. No

suggestion was given by the applicant to the complainant that he had

ever gone to her parental home to take her back or had ever taken any

legal recourse for restitution of conjugal rights. Under these

circumstances, if a girl refused to undergo the harassment or ill-

treatment on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and

came back to her parental home after staying for 30-35 days, then it

cannot be said that her evidence is unreliable. From the evidence of

the complainant, it is clear that she had stayed in her matrimonial

house for four times, but every time she was ill-treated. Under these

circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the

evidence of the complainant-Laxmibai (PW-1) is reliable.

Furthermore, her evidence is supported by Hariram (PW-2), her

brother, and Narayan Ju (PW-3), her father. No suggestion was ever

given to these witnesses with regard to any effort made by the

applicant to take her back.

6. Even otherwise, in the light of the judgment passed by the

Supreme Court in the case of Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar reported

in (2019) 4 SCC 197, even if the concurrent findings of facts

recorded by the Courts below are erroneous, still this Court in

exercise of powers under Section 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. cannot

substitute its findings. It is well established principle of law that this

Court can interfere in exercise of its revisional power only if the

concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below are

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.1360/2022 Mukesh Vs. State of M.P.

perverse or contrary to law or the Court had no jurisdiction to try the

offence. As no perversity or lack of jurisdiction could be pointed out

by the counsel for the applicant, therefore, this Court is of the

considered opinion that no case is made out for even admitting this

Criminal Revision.

7. Ex consequenti, the judgment and sentence dated 7/4/2022

passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pichhore, Distric Shivpuri in

Criminal Appeal No.26/2017 and the judgment and sentence dated

4/10/2016 passed by JMFC, Khaniyadhana, District Shivpuri in RCT

No.373/2015 are hereby affirmed.

8. The revision fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Arun* ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2022.04.25 17:13:23 +05'30'