Vijay Laxmi vs State And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 6708 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 332/2002

Vijay Laxmi

----Petitioner Versus State And Ors

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Gaur, Amicus Curiae For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

07/05/2022

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread

of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being

maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety

of all concerned.

2. Mr. Amit Gaur, Advocate is appointed as Amicus Curiae to

argue the matter on behalf of the complainant-petitioner under

the free legal aid scheme of RSLSA. His remuneration shall be paid

by the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority as per the rules.

3. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with

Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner/

complainant against the judgment dated 12.02.2002 passed by

the learned Sessions Judge, Merta in Criminal Appeal No.57/2001,

whereby while allowing the appeal filed by the accused-

respondents and quashing and setting aside the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 01.09.1997 passed by

learned Civil Judge (S.D.) cum Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

(2 of 6) [CRLR-332/2002]

Deedwana in Criminal Regular Case No.45/97 (State Vs. Surya

Kant & Ors.), the accused-respondents were acquitted of the

charge levelled against them.

3.1 The learned trial court, vide the judgment dated

01.09.1997, though acquitted the accused-respondents of the

offence under Section 406 IPC, but convicted them for the offence

under Section 498A IPC and sentenced them to undergo two years

rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of

payment of which, each of the accused-respondents were to

undergo three months simple imprisonment.

3.2 The prayer clause of the petition reads as under:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this revision petition may kindly be allowed; the impugned order dated 12.02.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta may kindly be quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana dated 01.09.1997 may kindly be restored."

4. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner submits that

the marriage between the complainant/petitioner and the

accused-respondent No.2 was solemnized on 10.12.1994; some

time thereafter, the accused-respondents (husband and in-laws)

started subjecting the complainant/petitioner to immense cruelty

and ill treatment, under the garb of demanding dowry articles viz.

jewellery etc.; whereafter, the complainant's father and other

family member intervened, and requested the complainant's

husband and in-laws not to continue such cruelty and ill-

treatment, but despite such request, the cruelty and ill treatment,

coupled with the demand of dowry did not stop.

(3 of 6) [CRLR-332/2002]

4.1 Learned counsel further submits that at one point of time,

when her brother came to visit the complainant at her matrimonial

home, her in-laws even misbehaved with her brother. Learned

counsel also submits that her in-laws even gave beatings to the

complainant, as a result of which, she sustained injuries;

whereafter she returned to her parents house; thereafter, she

demanded return of the articles given by her parents at the time

of the marriage, but the complainant's in-laws never returned

such articles.

4.2 Learned counsel also submits that thereafter, upon being

approached by the complainant/petitioner alongwith the written

report dated 21.12.1996, the case was registered at Police

Station, Deedwana against the accused-respondents for the

offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC; after investigation, the

charge-sheet was filed, which after due trial, culminated into

conviction of the accused-respondents vide judgment dated

01.09.1997 passed by the learned trial court, as above; but the

said well reasoned speaking order was interfered with and

quashed by the impugned judgment dated 12.02.2002 passed by

the learned appellate court.

4.3 Learned counsel also submits that the learned appellate

court has committed a grave error, in setting aside the well

considered judgment passed by the learned trial court, despite the

fact that the said judgment clearly indicates due consideration of

the overall facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with due

appreciation of the evidence placed on record before the learned

trial court. As per learned counsel, the learned appellate court has

also not taken into due consideration the fact that all the

(4 of 6) [CRLR-332/2002]

prosecution witnesses have clearly and in unequivocal terms

supported by the prosecution story and the narration made by the

complainant/petitioner in the aforementioned report.

4.4 Learned counsel further submits that the detailed analysis

having been made by the learned trial court, while passing the

judgment of conviction is further fortified from the fact that the

learned trial court has, upon due appreciation of the material

available on record before it, acquitted the accused-respondents of

the offence under Section 406 IPC.

5. Though the learned Public Prosecutor is appearing on behalf

of the respondent-State, but no one puts in appearance on behalf

of the accused-respondents, despite the fact that the service of

notice had already been effected upon them, long back, as per the

office reports available in the file.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner

at length as well as perusing the record of the case, alongwith the

impugned judgment passed by the learned appellate court, this

Court finds that the learned appellate court has made due

consideration of the overall facts and circumstances of the case,

before passing the impugned judgment of acquittal in favour of

the accused-respondents.

7. This Court also finds that the learned appellate court has

rightly recorded in the impugned judgment that the version of the

complainant/petitioner, as placed by her during the course of the

trial, was quite inconsistent, rather appears to be an afterthought,

and such allegations, as levelled, were nothing but an attempt to

implicate more and more persons in the criminal proceeding;

though such an attempt, as reflected from the impugned

(5 of 6) [CRLR-332/2002]

judgment, found favour with the learned trial court, but the same

was set at naught by the learned appellate court vide the

impugned judgment.

8. This Court is conscious of the fact that though the offence

under Section 498-A IPC is a continuing offence, but as recorded

in the impugned judgment, apart from several inconsistencies and

discrepancies in the version of the complainant/petitioner during

the course of the trial, it is also a matter of record that the

testimony of a witness, who threw some light over the version of

the complainant petitioner, which if clearly substantiated, may

prove to be fatal to the case of the accused-respondents; but the

said testimony, as per the record and the impugned judgment,

was not supported even by the complainant herself; and such

contradiction was clearly detrimental to the case of the

prosecution and the version of the prosecution. Thus, on that

count also, the impugned judgment is perfectly justified; this is

more so when the learned trial court, only on the basis of the

testimony of only one witness, convicted and sentenced the

accused-respondents, as above.

9. Apart from what has been mentioned hereinabove, the

learned appellate court also recorded in the impugned judgment

that the version of the complainant/petitioner did not reveal any

specific mention as to when and by whom the demand of dowry

was made and who and when caused the injuries to her.

10. Furthermore, as per the impugned judgment, the

complainant/petitioner never resided in her matrimonial home

continuously for a long time; very often she used to go and stay

for a long time at her parents home; she also could not give any

(6 of 6) [CRLR-332/2002]

satisfactory explanation as to why the report was not lodged by

her at Jaipur itself (place where her matrimonial home was

situated); all such discrepancies, amongst others, clearly tilts in

favour of the accused-respondents, and thus, the learned court

has rightly reversed the judgment of conviction passed by the

learned trial court, and hence, committed no error while passing

the impugned judgment of acquittal in favour of the accused-

respondents.

11. In view of the above, this Court does not find any legal

infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned

appellate court, so as to warrant any interference by this Court.

12. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending

applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below

be sent back forthwith.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

43-Sanjay/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)