AVTAR KRISHNA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 1302 of 2003 has been filed by the accused appellant Avtar Krishna against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 4.9.2003 passed in Sessions case No. 43/2003 of Additional Sessions Judge No.2. Krishangarh Bass , District Alwar convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 498A IPC and sentencing him for two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000 and in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for two months. The State of Rajasthan filed Criminal Leave Petition which was allowed by the order of this court dated 30.10.2007 and the said criminal Leave to Appeal No. 28/2004 has now been registered as S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1825 of 200? against the judgment dated 4.9.2003 acquitting the accused respondent Avtar Krishna for the offence under Sections 406 and 306 IPC. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the complainant against the judgment dated 4.9.2003 acquitting the accused respondent A vtaar Krishna for the offence under Sections 406 and 306 IPC. Since in these three cases common judgment dated 4.9.2003 has been challenged, all these three cases are being that on 28.3.2003 complainant Kanhaiya Lal gave written report af Police Station Mundawar wherein he stated that his daughter got married with Avtaar Krishna on 7.3.2000. Since marriage of his daughter she was being harassed and tortured by her in-law regarding the demand of dowry. They always made pressure on his daughter for bringing dowry from the parents. Complainant further stated that after marriage they came to know that his son-in-law A vtaar Krishna is having illicit relation with another lady, this thing was told to him by his daughter complainant's daughter's in- laws sent her to Noida with her husband, there she was tortured and threatened by her husband Avtaar Krishna. After that his daughter came to his house and on 12.1.2003 he made efforts and requested to his daughter's in-law for taking back to his daughter. Then matter came the settled and his daughter went to her in law house. On 28.3.2003 at 5.30 a.m. Som Dutt Sharma made telephone to the complainant and told him that Pushpa was serious and they were taking her to Jaipur. Later on, Som Dutt again called him at 5.45 and told that they we re not going Jaipur and complainant was asked to come at Maundnwara. When complainant reached his daughter's in-laws house, he found that his daughter was dead. On the bass of this FIR No. 69/2003 came to be registered for the offence under Sections 498A and 304B IPC, the police after completion of investigation on filed challan against the appellant for the offence under Sections 498A, 304B and 406 IPC. Thereafter the case was committed for trial to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. Krishangarh Bass. The Trial Court framed the challan.under Sections 498A, 306 and 406 IPC against the accused appellant. The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution tendered evidence 20 witnesses and exhibited 15 documents was examined and he exhibited 7 documents: The trial court vide judgment dated 4.9.2003 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above and acquitted of the offence under Section 406 IPC and 306 IPC

(2.) Mr. Peeyush Kumar, Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has contended that the Court below has erred in not properly considering the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr. PC of PW 12 Kanhaiyalai, PW1 Haridutt, PW.15 Shivshanker Sharma, PW 13 Smt. Shanti Devi, PW3 Tarachand, PW.14 Meera Sharma, which evidently proved the guilt of the accused respondent. He has further contended that the trial court has not properly considered letter Ex. P 6 which was written by the accused himself. The Public Prosecutor further contended that in these circumstances the judgment of acquittal of the accused respondent under Section 306 and 406 IPC may be quashed and set aside and the accused respondent be convicted and sentenced for these two Sections 406 and 306 IPC also.

(3.) Mr. R.K. Mathur, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Aditya Mathur appearing for the complainant reiterating the arguments raised by the learned Public Prosecutor has stated that the trial court has committed serious illegality as well as error of law in acquitting the accused respondent for offence under Sections 406 and 306 IPC while there was sufficient material available on record to hold the accused respondent guilty for these sections also. He has also contended that the trial Court has fallen into serious error by not taking into consideration the statement of PW12 Kanhaiyalal. According to him the statement of PW12 is self sufficient in convicting the accused respondent for the offences.