BALI MOHD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment and order dated 4. 7. 2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No. 66/99 by which he allowed the appeal of the other accused persons, namely, Safi Mohd. And Alladitta, but dismissed the appeal of the present accused petitioner and upheld the judgment and order dated 11. 11. 1999 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Cr. Case No. 31/96 so far as they relate to him by which he was convicted for the offence under Section 498a IPC and sentenced to undergo one year RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one months RI.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision petition, in short, are as follows:- On 16. 2. 1993, PW. 1 Rafika (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), wife of the present accused petitioner, lodged a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh against the present accused petitioner and four more accused persons stating inter-alia that she was married with the accused petitioner before five years and in that marriage, many articles in dowry were given, but there was a persistent demand from the side of the accused persons for TV and Motor-cycle and since that demand was not fulfilled by her father PW 3 Imamdeen, therefore, accused persons started torturing and beating her and they used to shunt out her from the house and for that, Panchayats were held many times and Mamdeen, Sultan, Asgarali (PW 4), Liyakat Ali, Ramzan, Shah Mohd. and others attended the Panchayats and the accused persons were advised not to do so. It was further stated in the complaint that one months back, accused persons beat her and shunted out her from the house and thereafter, after holding Panchayat, she came back to the house of the accused persons, but on 11. 2. 1993 in the night at about 8. 9. 00 PM, accused persons beat her. Thus, accused persons tortured and harassed complainant PW 1 Rafika for not bringing sufficient dowry etc. and therefor, they have committed the offences punishable under sections 498 A and 406 IPC. On 17. 2. 1993, the said complaint was sent by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh to SHO, Police Station, Hanumangarh under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. , where a regular FIR was chalked out and investigation was started. It may be stated here that before lodging the complaint, the complainant PW 1 Rafika was got medically examined by PW 8 Dr. R. K. Gupta and her injury report is Ex. P/9, which shows that she received five injuries. After usual investigation, the police submitted challan for the offence under sections 498a and 406 IPC against five accused persons in the Court of Magistrate, Hanumangarh. THE contents of the charges for the offence under sections 498a and 406 IPC were read over and explained t the accused persons on 25. 2. 1994. THE accused persons denied the contents of the charges and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 8 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. THEreafter, the statements of the accused persons under section 313 Cr. P. C. were recorded. No evidence was led in defence by the accused persons. After recording evidence and conclusion of trial, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh vide his judgment and order dated 11. 11. 1999 acquitted all the accused persons for the offence under Sec. 406 IPC, but convicted all the five accused persons for the offence under Sec. 498a IPC, however instead of sentencing accused Fattu and Mst. Karma for the said offence, they were released on probation under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, but rest accused persons, namely Bali (present accused petitioner), Safi and Alladitta were sentenced for the said offence to undergo one year RI and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month RI. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 11. 11. 1999 passed by the learned Add. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh, the accused petitioner Bali (husband of the complainant), Safi (Jeth of the complainant) and Alladitta (Mama of complainant's husband) preferred as appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, who vide judgment dated 4. 7. 2001, after analysing the evidence on record elaborately, allowed the appeal of the another accused Safi and Alladitta, but dismissed the appeal of the present accused petitioner BAli and confirmed the judgment and order dated 11. 11. 99 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh so far as they relate to him. Aggrieved from the said judgment dated 4. 7. 2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, this revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner.

(3.) AFTER perusing the impugned judgments and orders of both the courts below and especially the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, hanumangarh dt. 4. 7. 2001, it appears that the learned Sessions Judge has examined the evidence led by the prosecution in a very meticulous manner and after analysing the evidence on record elaborately, he came to the conclusion that the injuries to the complainant PW 1 Rafika were caused by the present accused petitioner, who is husband of the complainant and furthermore, he also came to the conclusion that so far as the demand of TV and Motor-cycle is concerned, it was also directly made by the present accused petitioner and not by others and thus, he came to the conclusion that prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence u/sec. 498a IPC against the present accused petitioner only and that is why, he allowed the appeal of other two accused persons, but dismissed the appeal of the accused petitioner.