STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. KHIVRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant-State under Sec. 378(iii) and (i) of Cr.P.C. against the acquittal of the accused-respondent from offences under Ss. 498-A, 324, 323 and 307 IPC vide judgment dtd. 24/8/2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Barmer in Sessions Case No.56/2011. Brief facts of the case are that on 1/7/2011, prosecutrix Smt. Dropadi @ Dariya gave a parcha bayan to the Police personnel at Government Hospital, to the effect that her marriage was solemnized with the accused-respondent eleven years ago according to hindu rites and rituals. After marriage, the accused-respondent started harassing the prosecutrix mentally and physically for bringing less dowry. Out of the wedlock, two daughters were born. The complainant further stated that when she reached at school of her daughter, the accused-respondent came there and inflicted scissors injuries upon her.

(2.) On the said parcha bayan, FIR was registered against the accused-respondent and Police started investigation. After investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-respondent. Thereafter, the trial court framed charges against the accused-respondent for offences under Ss. 498A, 324, 323, 307 IPC, who denied the charges and claimed trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses and exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statement of accused-respondent was recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dtd. 24/8/2015 acquitted the accused-respondent from offence under Ss. 498A, 324, 323 & 307 IPC. Hence, this criminal appeal.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused-respondent from offence under Ss. 498A, 324, 323 and 307 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 ought to have been convicted and sentenced for offence under Ss. 498A, 324, 323 and 307 IPC. Learned counsel for accused-respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned Public Prosecutor and submitted that the order of acquittal is just and proper and therefore, requires no interference. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the trial.