SUSHMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal revision petition has been filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, challenging the judgment dtd. 16/8/2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari wherein the accused-respondent No.2 (herein) was acquitted of the charges under Sec. 498A of the IPC and the judgment of conviction dtd. 29/5/2015 and order of sentence dtd. 1/6/2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kosli was set-aside

(2.) For clarity and simplicity, the revisionist-petitioner, who has filed the impugned FIR, will be referred to as the 'complainant' while respondent No.2, the accused in the impugned FIR, will be referred to as the 'accused' throughout this judgment

(3.) In the present revision petition, the pertinent facts necessary for adjudication are that the complainant had approached the SDJM, Kosli who directed for registration of a case under Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C., 1973 and consequently the instant FIR bearing No.06 dtd. 28/1/2011 was lodged against the accused-respondent No. 2, a resident of village Mukundpura, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan), under Ss. 498-A, 323, 406, 511 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity the 'IPC') at Police Station Jatusana. The matter proceeded to trial before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kosli, which concluded its proceedings and, vide judgment dtd. 29/5/2015, held the accused (respondent No.2 herein) guilty of an offence punishable under Sec. 498A of the 1PC. Dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused (respondent No.2 herein) preferred an appeal against the said judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kosli. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, vide judgment dtd. 16/8/2017, set-aside the trial court's decision and acquitted the accused of the charges. The appellate Court held that the trial court had not correctly appreciated the evidence in accordance with the relevant legal principles, and thus had not reached the appropriate conclusion based on the material facts presented during the trial, and hence require interference.