Shri Narayan @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, the Public Prosecutor, appearing for State as also learned counsel for the complainant.

This revision petition has been preferred on behalf of the accused petitioner to assail the judgment dated 14.12.2010 passed by learned Addl. Sessions

Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Sikar

H.Q. Srimadhopur whereby he upheld the judgment dated 14.7.2010 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate No.1, Srimadhopur (Sikar), by

which the learned trial court has convicted the accused petitioner for the offence under Sec. 498A and 406 IPC and sentenced him for the period of

two years’ SI with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Sec.498A IPC, and imposed the sentence of six months’ SI for the offence

under Sec.406 IPC. Default sentence for ten days was also awarded.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses.

The inconsistency and contradiction amongst the prosecution witnesses have been ignored. There is misreading and non-reading of the material

evidence and the judgments have been passed on mere conjectures and surmises. It has further been contended that the respondent-wife Manju Devi

had left the matrimonial home in the year 1995, just after almost a year of the marriage but the FIR was lodged on 1.8.2000 which has been filed with

inordinate delay. This fact has also not been considered by the courts below. Learned counsel has further contended that the wife was suffering from

mental illness. There is evidence on record to show that she was treated by psychiatrics Dr. Shiv Gautam and Dr. Vyas. In order to deviate the

matter from the actual controversy, allegations of causing cruelty were made against the petitioner which are baseless. It has also been contended that

since there was no electricity available in the village, allegation of demand for dowry articles like T.V. and fridge are baseless. Learned counsel

submits that both the courts below have failed to consider these material aspects while pronouncing the judgments impugned and, therefore, same are

liable to be quashed and set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the complainantrespondent has taken the objection at the outset that since the concurrent findings have been

recorded by both the courts below in regard to the offences under Sec.498A and 406 IPC, this court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, cannot

reappreciate the evidence. To support his contention, he has placed reliance on AIR 1975 SC 1960-Duli Chand Vs. Delhi Administration. He further

contends that even on factual aspect, the plea taken by rival sides is not justified. During the examination of the accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., he

has not stated that the complainant wife was suffering from any mental disorder. No defence witnesses in regard to such disorder have been

examined. Counsel further states that the complainant PW-1 has specifically stated in her examination in chief that at the time of her marriage, she

was studying in Class XII. It has also come during cross-examination of PW-6 Samarthi Lal Meena that Manju was undergoing training of B.Ed and

prior to that she was serving in private school. It clearly indicates that she was not suffering from any mental disorder. Learned counsel for the

respondent also contends that no legal issue has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner to show that how the judgments impugned suffer

from any illegality or infirmity for which the revision petition is liable to be allowed. Therefore, he prays that the revision petition deserves to be

dismissed.

I have gone through the evidence available on record and the judgments impugned. At the outset, it may be observed that both the courts below have

given concurrent finding of fact as regards the charge framed for the offence under Sec. 498A and 406 IPC. In view of the judgments relied upon by

the learned counsel for the respondent in Duli Chand’s Case (supra), it is established legal proposition that when there is concurrent finding of

fact, the evidence cannot be re-appreciated in the revision preferred. The jurisdiction of this court in criminal revision is severely restricted and it

cannot embark upon re-appreciation of evidence. On going through the judgments impugned, this court finds that same cannot be found to have

suffered from any illegality or infirmity on account of mis-reading and non-reading of material witnesses. Immetarial contradictions in the statements

of prosecution witnesses on the point as to after how much period complainant came back to her maternal home, cannot be presumed as material

evidence. Such inconsistency in the evidence can safely be ignored and the judgments passed by the courts below cannot be said to have suffered

from infirmity on this count.

Main plea which has been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complainant was suffering from mental disorder. She got married

with petitioner while suppressing this fact. But in my considered view, the courts below have rightly rejected this plea. PW-1 Manju has stated that at

the time of her marriage, she was studying in Class XII. This fact clearly negates the plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The

prosecution witnesses have stated that because of harassment and ill-treatment to the complainant, she got mentally disturbed. It has also been

admitted by the prosecution witnesses including the complainant that she was treated by psychiatrics Dr.Vyas and Dr.Shiv Gautam but the

complainant has denied that she was completely insane. In these circumstances, it cannot be inferred that the complainant was suffering from mental

disorder and this fact was suppressed at the time of her marriage. It is further to be observed that no such stand has been taken by the accused

petitioner during his examination under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. Moreso, no witness has been examined in defence, and no documentary evidence has been

produced to show that the complainant was suffering from mental illness prior to marriage. This is sufficient to infer that the plea now being raised by

the counsel for the petitioner is baseless and mere an after thought.

The charge against the accused petitioner was for the offence under Sec. 498A and 406 IPC. For the allegation of aforesaid offences, this cannot be

a plausible defence that the wife was suffering from mental illness. Even for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that she was suffering from mental

illness, it cannot justify the conduct of the husband to treat her with cruelty and to harass her to meet the demand for dowry.

In substance, the ground raised by learned counsel for the petitioner do not at all justify to make any inference in the judgments impugned by this

court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction.

In the result, this court finds no substance in the revision petition and the same is dismissed accordingly.

                                      Â