Madhya Pradesh High Court
Urvashi Raikwar vs Praveen on 6 May, 2024
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 6 th OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 465 of 2016
BETWEEN:-
URVASHI RAIKWAR W/O PRAVEEN RAIKWAR, AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS, 219, VIDHYAPATI NGAR UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI BHARAT YADAV - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. PRAVEEN S/O OMPRAKASH RAIKWAR, AGED
ABOUT 36 YEARS, 64/1 GOPAL PURA MAXI ROAD
UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. OMPRAKASH S/O LATE MOHANLAL, AGED
ABOUT 55 YEARS, 64/1, GOPAL PURA MAXI RAOAD
UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SMT SUSHILA W/O OMPRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 52
YEARS, 64/1, GOPAL PURA MAXI RAOD UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. STATE OF MP THROUGH MAHILA POLICE
STATION UJJAIN UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS.NIVEDITA SHARMA - ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF SHRI MANISH
YADAV - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3.)
This revision coming on for orders this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present revision is filed u/S.397/401 of Cr.P.C being aggrieved by
the order passed by IX ASJ, Ujjain in Cr.A. No.372/2015 dated 24.2.2016
whereby the appellate court has confirmed the order of acquittal dated
19.3.2015 passed in Criminal Case No.1375/2013.
2. The facts of the case are that petitioner has lodged a report dated
31.4.2013 against present respondent No.1 to 3 at respondent No.4 police
station alleging therein that her marriage was performed with respondent No.1
Praveen on 26.5.2010 as per hindu rituals. Immediately after marriage
respondent No.1 to 3 started behaving cruelly with her and demanded dowry.
Previously also report was lodged for the same and a compromise occurred
between the parties on 18.7.2012 before High Court and then they started living
together. She came back in the matrimonial house and then respondents
started to abuse her for dowry, she was assaulted by them on 18.3.2013 and
19.3.2013 and she was forced to leave the matrimonial house. On the aforesaid
complaint respondent No.4 registered Crime No.34/2013 for the offence
punishable u/Ss.498-A, 506/34 of IPC against respondent No.1 to 3. Police
after completing the investigation filed the charge sheet in the Court of JMFC,
Ujjain. The learned trial court framed the charges u/Ss.498A, 506-II of IPC and
recorded the evidence and acquitted the respondent No.1 to 3. Respondent
No.4 State has also preferred criminal appeal against the judgment of acquittal
dated 19.3.2015 passed by JMFC, Ujjain. The learned ASJ has confirmed the
judgment of acquittal passed by JMFC, Ujjain.
3. Counsel for applicant submits that both the courts erred in acquitting
the respondent No.1 to 3. The courts have erred in presuming that the amount
demanded at the time of marriage by sister-in-law is a custom prevailed in the
society whereas it was not the case of defence nor they have proved any such
custom. It is further argued that both the courts have erred in saying that earlier
FIR is not produced in the present case and, therefore, it cannot be presumed
that the respondent No.1 to 3 have demanded dowry and committed cruelty
with the applicant. It is further argued that both the courts have erred in holding
that that the petitioner has lodged FIR after 15 days of the incident and the
delay caused is not explained correctly.
4. Counsel for respondents supports the order of acquittal and submits
that the order of acquittal is based on proper appreciation of facts and evidence
adduced by the parties.
5. After hearing learned counsel for parties, this court does not find any
error in the order of acquittal for commission of offence u/S.498-A, 506-II of
IPC. The trial court has rightly noted that in the report Ex.P/1 the complainant
had not mentioned about demand of dowry. In the court statement PW.1 had
stated about the marpit by the mother Deepa and brother Udaiveer of the
accused persons. The aforesaid allegations are not mentioned in Ex.P/1 written
report. In Ex.P/2 FIR, there is no mention of any written report. Both the
courts have rightly disbelieved the testimony of complainant PW.1, PW.2
Deepa, PW.3 Smt. Mangala and PW.4 Pramod as their testimony was
afterthought because no such allegations were made in the first written report
which was lodged by the complainant.
6. In view of the aforesaid, this court does not find any error in the order
of acquittal.
7. It is to note here that in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State Vs. K. Narsimhachary reported in
(2005) 8 SCC 364 said that as per well settled principle, if two views are
possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the findings of acquittal
recorded by the lower Court; it can only be interpreted where the material on
record leads to sole inescapable conclusion of the guilt of accused. In the case
of T. Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2006) 1 SCC 401 , the Apex
Court has reiterated the same principle relying upon said judgment and by
interfering in appeal the judgment of the High Court was set aside restoring the
judgment of the trial court acquitting the accused In the case of K. Prakashan
vs. P.K. Surenderan, (008) 1 SCC 258 , the Apex Court has observed that in
case two views are possible, the appellate Court shall not reverse the judgment
of acquittal only because the another view may be possibly taken.
8. The Apex Court has held in the case of Mahavir Singh Vs. State
of M.P., (2016) 10 SCC 220 that in the cases of acquittal by the court of law,
the court has to be very cautious in interfering in an appeal unless there are
compelling and substantial grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal. The
relevant paras 11 and 12 of the said judgment of Mahavir Singh (supra)
quoted as under:-
"11. We have heard the learned counsel on either side
at length and perused the material available on record.
Now it is imperative to look into the scope of
interference by the appellate Court in an appeal against
acquittal and whether the High Court was justified in
convicting the accused under Section 302, IPC by
reversing the order of acquittal passed by the Trial
Court.
1 2 . I n the criminal jurisprudence, an accused is
presumed to be innocent till he is convicted by a
competent Court after a full-fledged trial, and once the
Trial Court by cogent reasoning acquits the accused,
then the reaffirmation of his innocence places more
burden on the appellate Court while dealing with the
appeal. No doubt, it is settled law that there are no
fetters on the power of the appellate Court to review,
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence both on facts
and law upon which the order of acquittal is passed.
But the court has to be very cautious in interfering with
an appeal unless there are compelling and substantial
grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal. The
appellate Court while passing an order has to give clear
reasoning for such a conclusion."
9. In the light of the aforesaid facts, evidence and judgments of the Apex
Court, no case is made out for interference against order of acquittal. The
revision is dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
VM
