STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RUKMANI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a Sessions case No. 10 of 1983 Mst. Rukmani was tried under section 302 I.P.C. for committing the murder of her daughter-in-law Smt. Kamal learned Additional Session Judge, Dauer after recording the evidence passed an order of acquittal on 3rd March, 1984. The State did not file any appeal against the above order of acquittal. On 22nd February, 1986 when Lok-adalat was held at Alwar, an application was submitted. on behalf of Beena Kumari, daughter of Shiv Dayal before Honble Justice G. M. Lodha. On the said application Justice Lodha passed an order treating the said application at suo moto, revision against the order of acquittal. Thereafter, on 25th February, 1986 Justice Lodha passed the following order in chambers; 25.2.1986 Honble Mr. Justice G.M. Lodha (In Chamber) At the Lok Adalat. Alwar, on 22nd February, 1986, this application was presented for being treated as suo-moto revision against the order of acquittal: The office should register it as suo moto revision under section 397 read with section 401 Cr. P.C. The Secretary, Legal Aid Board, Jaipur may be requested to provide the counsel to the complainant-Beena Kumari as the complainant is poor and minor and whose mother is alleged to have been killed on not bringing the sufficient and adequate dowry as demanded by father Sri Shiv Dayal and grandmother Smt. Rukmani Devi: Admit, Issue notice, to the accused. Put up before the regular bench after notice is served. The office should ascertain and if any appeal has been filed by the State then this revision be tagged with it. Sd! (G M. Lodha)

(2.) After the notices were served on Smt. Rukmani and Shiv Dayal, this matter has come before us today in the above circumstances. On an earlier occasion on 14th August, 1986 when the matter was listed before V.S. Dave, J, objection was raised on behalf of Mr. Jagdeep Dhankhar learned counsel for the respondents that this court has no jurisdiction, express or implied, to issue a notice to Shiv Dayal who was not even accused during the trial and besides that nothing has been shown that there was any illegality committed during the course of trial which warranted in interference in revision against the order of the acquittal. It was further submitted by Mr. Dhankhar that acquittal could not be changed into conviction in exercise of the revisional powers of this court. Honble Dave, J. then passed an order for placing the matter before the Division Bench as the accused Rukmani was tried for an offence under section 302. I.P.C. We have heard Mr. Rathore on behalf on the complainant and Mr. Dhankhar for the respondents.

(3.) Admittedly, Smt. Rukmani was tried for an offence under section 302, I.P.C. and after a regular trial she was acquitted by the learned AddI. Sessions Judge by order dated 3rd March, 1984. No appeal against acquittal by the State or any revision by the complainant was filed against the above judgment of acquittal passed in the case. We have gone through the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge and in our view it cannot be said that the Judgment suffers from any perversity or illegality so as to interfere against the order of acquittal. Apart from that the order of acquittal was passed on 3rd March, 1984 and no reason has been given in the application filed by the complainant to explain the long delay of about 2 years in filing the present application 22nd February, 1986. In our view such casual application after a lapse of 2 years in a camp at Lok Adalat could not have been entertained in the exercise of the powers of revision of this court. The order of acquittal cannot be converted into conviction in exercise of the revisional powers of this court under the Cr. P.C., 1973. It is further important to mention that so far as Shiv Dayal is concerned, neither any challan was filed against him nor he was tried for any offence of murder of his wife Smt. Kamla. So far as Smt. Rukmani, mother-in law of Kamla is concerned she has been acquitted by the competent court. Thus, so far as Shiv Dayal is concerned there was no question of entertaining any revision whatsoever against him. So far as Rukmani is concerned she also got a statutory right of limitation in respect of the order of acquittal passed in her favour and in our view such casual application filed by the complainant in the Lok Adalat after a lapse of 2 years cannot be entertained without any circumstances to explain the delay. In view of these circumstances the notice issued against the respondent Shiv Dayal and Mst. Rukmani Devi in this case is discharged. Revision dismissed.