MONIKA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant criminal leave to appeal has been filed by the appellant-complainant under Sec. 378(4) Cr.P.C. against the acquittal of the accused-respondent No.2 from offence under Ss. 498A, 406, 313 IPC vide judgment dtd. 10/5/2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.45/2016 (CIS No.38/2016). Brief facts of the case are that on 30/3/2016, a complaint was filed by the appellant-complainant before the Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra against respondent No.2 for offence under Ss. 498A, 406, 323, 313 IPC inter-alia alleging therein that her marriage was solemnized with respondent No.2 on 14/5/2014 according to Hindu rites and rituals. At the time of marriage, her father gave sufficient dowry to the respondent No.1. Just after marriage, the respondent No.2 started harassing the complainant physically and mentally for dowry. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR was registered and Police started investigation. After investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-respondent No.2. Thereafter, the trial court framed charges against the respondent No.2 for offence under Ss. 498-A, 406, 313 IPC, who denied the charges and claimed trial.

(2.) During the course of trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses and exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statements of accused respondent No.2 was recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, the respondent No.2 examined two witnesses and also exhibited some documents. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dtd. 10/5/2019 acquitted the accused-respondent No.2 from the aforesaid offences. Hence, this criminal appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant submits that the learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused-respondent No.2 for offence under Ss. 498A, 406, 313 IPC. While passing the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has not considered the evidence and other aspects of the matter in its right perspective. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondent No.2 ought to have been convicted and sentenced for offence under Ss. 498A, 406, 313 IPC. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the trial.

(3.) On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment has considered each and every aspect of the matter and also considered the evidence produced before it in its right perspective. There are major contradictions, omissions & improvements in the statements of the witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused-respondent No.2 beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent No.2 from offence under Ss. 498A, 406, 313 IPC. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the appellant has failed to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under challenge. In the case of 'Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, : 2011(9) SCC 479,' decided on September 5, 2011, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under: