SOLANKI VITTHALBHAI JIVABHAI Vs. PARMAR JAYANTILAL GOVINDLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revisionist-original complainant has filed criminal case No. 3126 of 2001 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Mehsana against the present respondents No. 1 to 8 for the offences punishable under sections 504, 506 (2) 114, 406, 420, 506 (1) of IPC. Respondents No. 1 to 6 are in-laws and members of family of in-laws of son of the complainant. Brief facts of the case are as under:

(2.) MARRIAGE of Pravinbhai, son of the complainant and respondent No. 3-Hetalben took place on 24. 2. 2000. After the marriage, when she was pregnant, she took treatment from one Dr. K F Patel. It is alleged that at the instance of the father, mother and other accused persons, Hetalben had two abortions. It is alleged that on 23. 4. 2001, the applicant had gone to Mehsana and on his return in the evening, he was informed by his family members that the accused persons came to his place and signature of Pravinbhai was obtained on Rs. 20/- stamp paper by administering threat and coercion for divorce between Pravinbhai and Hetalben. They also threatened the applicant and his family that respondent No. 3-Hetalben will initiate action under the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is also alleged that the accused have taken away by force ornaments, furniture and utensils worth Rs. 30,000/- It is alleged that the complainant lodged complaint before police and police did not record the complaint of the complainant and so the complainant was compelled to file criminal case No. 3216 before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana on 10. 8. 2001. Summons was issued against the accused persons and the accused were present in the court and they denied all the charges. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Evidence was recorded and the complainant was examined at Exh. 29. Prosecution witness Taraben was examined at Exh. 32, Pravinbhai (husband of the victim) at Exh. 36 and witness Dashratbhai was examined at Exh. 50. At the end of the trial, after hearing the learned advocates of both the sides, the trial court acquitted the accused in the above referred charges levelled against them. Hence this Revision Application is filed by the revisionist.

(3.) HEARD Mr N. S. Sheth, learned Advocate for the applicant. Mr Sheth has taken this court to the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge and to the deposition of the witnesses. This court has also gone through the evidence on record and also the deposition of the witnesses. So far as the signature on divorce papers is concerned, Pravinbhai admitted his signature on it. Dashratbhai, an independent witness has also signed the said document. As per his evidence, the divorce took place with the consent of the parties and not under any threat or coercion. It is rightly held by the trial court that so far as the other witnesses are concerned, they are interested witnesses. Though Pravinbhai signed the document, he did not lodge any complaint immediately before the police. The trial court has discussed evidence in great detail and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed miserably to produce any evidence to support their case. It is also pertinent to note that the incident took place on 23. 4. 2008. In spite of that the complaint was lodged on 10. 8. 2008. No plausible explanation has been given by the complainant for lodging the complaint late. Simply it was stated that police refused to accept the complaint and, therefore, they could not file the complaint in time. Nothing has come on record which shows that the complainant has gone to the police station for lodging the complaint. Only on the ground of delay in filing the complaint, the accused are entitled to get benefit of doubt.