DHARAM PAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant complainant against the judgment dated 10.4.2012 passed by the learned Special Addl. Sessions Judge (Women Atrocity and Dowry Cases), Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No. 8/2012, whereby the respondents No. 2 to 6 were acquitted of the charges under Sections 306 and 120-B I.P.C.

(2.) Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant herein filed a complaint against the respondents No. 2 to 6 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gharsana on 8.12.2010. He alleged that the complainant's younger brother Naurang Lal got married with Saroj respondent No. 3 herein on 5.5.2009. He further alleged that his mother Kalawati and father Omprakash lived with Naurang Lal at Village Chak 13KD(B). He further alleged that Hari Ram is the father-in-law of Naurang Lal whilst Mukesh and Shakti Kumar were his brother-in-laws and Kaushalya Devi was his mother-in-law. He alleged that Saroj used to treat Smt. Kalawati and Sh. Omprakash with cruelty. Saroj's parents had assaulted the first informant's parents on not less than 3 to 4 occasions. Sarjo feigned to have consumed spray on 14.10.2010 and got his father too make an unnecessary expenditure of Rs. 50,000/-. Thereafter, his parents were abused and were threatened that they would be killed or their lives would be made miserable. They were forced to fall at the feet of the accused. On 18.10.2010 his parents left the village on a motorcycle on the pretext of bringing medicines. He further averred in the complaint that at about 5.45 P.M. the complainant's father Omprakash called him on his phone and told him that henceforth he should take care of the family as both of them were committing suicide by jumping in the canal near Kapuli. The complainant was also told by the deceased that he was leaving the motorcycle, mobile, shoes etc., near the canal. The complainant was allegedly informed by Sh. Omprakash that the deceased declared that he and Smt. Kalawati had been forced to take this drastic step of ending their lives because of the cruelty committed by Saroj, Hari Ram and his wife. The complainant was also told that the deceased had written a suicide note. After taking the call, the complainant immediately proceeded to the canal near Kapuli. The motorcycle, shoes and the mobile phone of his father were seen scattered near the canal. His father's dead body was recovered on 20.10.2010 near Chak 13K whilst his mother's dead body was recovered from 3 ND canal. The complainant alleged that on searching the house, a suicide note written by his father was unearthed. Ultimately, it was alleged that his parents had been abetted to commit suicide due to the cruel conduct of the accused. The complainant alleged that he filed an application in the Police Station Anoopgarh for registration of the case on 20.10.2010. The Police however, simply registered a mrig report under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The complainant took various respectable persons of the society to the house of the accused by way of a Panchayat. There the accused threatened that they had played their part and that the Panchayat should go away or else another case would be registered by Saroj against them.

(3.) The complaint was forwarded to the Police Station Ravla, District Sriganganagar where F.I.R. No. 7/2011 was registered for the offences under Sections 306 and 120-B of the I.P.C. Upon conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondents No. 2 to 6 for the aforesaid offences. Learned trial Court framed charges against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial The prosecution examined 8 witnesses in support of its case. The accused denied the allegations. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they pleaded innocence. They however, did not lead any defence. Learned trial Court at the conclusion of the trial proceeded to acquit the respondents No. 2 to 6 by the judgment dated 10.4.2012. The complainant victim has now approached this Court by way of this appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal as recorded by the learned trial Judge. The appeal is belated by 275 days. An application for condonation of delay has been filed along with the appeal.