URMILA (MST.) Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition challenge has been made to the judgment dated 4.6.2002 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli District Karauli acquitting the accused - respondents No. 2 to 4 from the offence under Sec. 498-A I.P.C.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts for the disposal of this revision petition are that a complaint was filed by the petitioner of 30.3.1990 before the learned trial Court with the averments that in the year 1985 she was married to accused Shyam Singh as per Hindu rites. At the time of marriage proper dowry was given. Her in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry and started harassing her. In the year 1986 the petitioner was thrown out of the house with the instruction that she would be permitted to live with them if she would bring 5 tola gold, one refrigerator and Rs. 15,000.00 in cash. It is also averred that in the year 1989 a divorce petition was filed by Magan Singh but on the persuasion made by them and assurance given to her that in future she will be dealt with properly she came back to her in-laws house, but their behavior did not change. It is also averred that after 1986 she came to her in-laws house on 6.3.1990. On that day her husband was not there and on 7.3.1990 again the demand was made. She was also beaten. She sustain injuries. Her medical examination was also got done. The complaint so filed before the learned trial Court was sent under Sec. 156(3) Crimial P.C. to the concerned Police Station where a case No. 121/1990 was registered under Sections 323, 342, 392 and 498-A I.P.C. and after investigation it was found that no case was made out, as such final report was submitted. The learned trial Court thereafter recorded statement of complainant and took cognizance against the accused-respondents under Sec. 489-A I.P.C. The accused was tried. In all statements of five witnesses were recorded. In the statements recorded under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C., the accused stated that they were falsely implicated in the case. No evidence in defence was adduced. The learned trial Court on finding that in relation to an defence was adduced. The learned trial Court on finding that in relation to an incident took place in the year 1986, complaint was filed i the year 1990 was firstly contradictory in relation to incident and secondly it was barred by limitation. The learned trial Court finding that the prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the accused were liable to be acquitted from the charge levelled against them under Sec. 498-A I.P.C., acquitted the accused. Hence, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Court has committed serious illegality in not considering the matter as a continuing offence. It is contended that in the complaint in relation to the incident of 1990 description has been given, therefore, the accused were liable to be convicted. Learned counsel has read over the complaint and also statements of witnesses.