ANJU SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common question of law is involved in both the Criminal Revisions, hence, they are taken up and decided by this common judgment. For the sake of brevity, the facts of CRLR No.271 of 2013 are taken into consideration.

(2.) These criminal revisions are preferred by the revisionist assailing the judgment and order dtd. 31/10/2011 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar, in Criminal Complaint No.12 of 2011 Anju Vs. Sunil Kumar and Ors., whereby, the respondent-Satish Kumar was acquitted of the charge under Sec. 406 IPC, as well as the judgment and order dtd. 23/8/2013 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in Criminal Appeal No.182 of 2011 Sunil Vs. Anju Singh and Ors. Vs. Minshun Kumar and another, and Criminal Appeal No.183 of 2011 Anju Vs. State and Others, whereby, the Criminal Appeal No.182 of 2011 preferred by appellant-Sunil Kumar was allowed and the Criminal Appeal No.183 of 2011 preferred by appellant-Anju was rejected and the judgment and order dtd. 31/10/2011 was set aside in respect of respondent-Sunil Kumar and he was also acquitted of the charge under Sec. 406 IPC

(3.) The facts in brief are that the revisionist/ complainant was married to one-Sunil Kumar on 17/3/1996 as per the Hindu Rites and Rituals. She lodged a complaint in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Roorkee stating that the accused persons were criminally misappropriating her Streedhan given to her by her relatives at the time of marriage. She alleged that different members of her matrimonial house had confiscated different items given to her as Streedhan. On the basis of above complaint, the learned Judicial Magistrate Roorkee, took cognizance and later, the case was submitted to learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, who conducted the trial. During trial, two accused persons, namely, Bhopal Singh and Smt. Gargi Devi died and the trial was abated against them. The learned Trial Court acquitted Satish Kumar for the charge under Sec. 406 IPC and convicted Sunil Kumar for the charge under Sec. 406 IPC and sentenced him for one year's imprisonment, vide its judgment and order dtd. 31/10/2011. The revisionist/ complainant filed an appeal in the Court of learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, assailing the acquittal of Satish Kumar and inadequacy of sentence meted out to Sunil Kumar. The learned Appellate Court below upheld the acquittal of Satish Kumar and also acquitted Sunil Kumar of the charge under Sec. 406 IPC. Hence, the revisionist approached this Court.