Smt. Seema Shukla vs Gurudutt Shukla And Ors

The present revision petition (Cr.R No. 18/2015) has been preferred by the complainant challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 05.12.2014

passed by the learned appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 416/2012 and also the part of judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court whereby,

respondents have been acquitted from the charges under Section 294 and 506-II of IPC.

The present revision petition (Cr.R. 58/2015) Passed by the trial Court confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by the judgment of trial Court

dated 27.11.2012 whereby, respondent-Richa has been acquitted from the charges under Section 498-A, 294 and 506-B of IPC.

The relationship between the parties for sake of convenience is that complainant-Seema is wife of Guru Dutt Sharma, Naval Kishore being father-

in-law, Rani Devi being mother-in-law and Guru Dutt being husband of the complainant and Preety @ Gudiya and Richa are sister-in-law (Nanad).

The factum of marriage of complainant-Seema with Guru Dutt Shukla on 30.04.2002 at Pohri District Shivpuri is admitted fact.

As per the prosecution story, a complaint has been lodged on 30.06.2006 with respect to the incident said to have taken place on 27.06.2006 by

complainant-Seema W/o Guru Dutt Shukla stating there in that after her marriage, she remained in her matrimonial house for two months and there

was no dispute, but thereafter, her husband along with her in-laws have started abusing and harassing her and started demand of dowry of Rs.

2,00,000/-. She was beaten by her husband and in-laws. The information was sent to her father on 08.02.2004, thereafter, father came to her

matrimonial house and took her along with him. A maintenance case was filed by the complainant against her husband, which was compromised on

27.06.2006 and she went to her matrimonial house along with her husband from the Court itself. Again she was harassed by the husband and in-laws

with respect to demand of dowry of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Her brother Pradeep Kumar Shukla and his friend Ravi Kumar came to her matrimonial house

and saw that she was being beaten and was pushed out of the house saying that there is no compromise without money (two lacs). She was

threatened and was asked to bring Rs.2,00,000/- (two lacs) from her father, failing which, they will not keep her and will kill her. On the basis of the

aforesaid information, an FIR was got registered at Crime No. 298/2006 at police Station Shivpuri for offence under Sections 294, 506-II and 498-A of

IPC. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the learned trial Court. The prosecution has got examined certain

prosecution witnesses namely complainant-Seema (PW-1), mother-Munni Tiwari (PW-2), brother-Pradeep Kumar (PW-3), father-Dinesh Kumar

(PW-4), Keshav Singh Tomar (PW-5), Ravi Kumar (PW-6), Dr. S.K. Jain (PW-7), Bahadur Singh (PW-8)/head constable and J.S. Yadav (PW-9)-

Investigating Officer in support of their case.

The learned trial Court after going through the entire oral as well as documentary evidence on record and after hearing the parties at length has

arrived at conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against all the accused persons-respondents under Section 294, 506-II of

IPC. Charges under Section 498-A of IPC has not been found proved against Smt. Richa (Sister-in-law of the complainant) and she has been

acquitted from all the charges vide judgment of acquittal dated 27.11.2012, but charges under Section 498-A of IPC were found to be proved against

Guru Dutt/husband, Naval Kishor Shukla (Father-in-law), Rani Devi (Mother-in-law) and Preety @ Guddiya (Sister-in-law/nand) and accordingly,

vide judgment dated 27.11.2012 they were convicted under Section 498-A of IPC for one year RI and fine of Rs. 500/- each with default stipulation.

Against the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, two appeals were preferred in which one appeal was filed by Guru Dutt Shukla, Rani Devi,

Prity @ Gudiya and Naval Kishore bearing Criminal Appeal No.416/2012 and another appeal was preferred by complainant-Seema Shukla against the

judgment of acquittal for the offence under Sections 294 and 506-B of IPC and also the acquittal of Richa from all the charges, the same was

registered as Criminal Appeal No.419/2012. The learned appellate Court after appreciation of all the evidences are available on record has arrived at

the conclusion that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting Richa from all the charges and other accused persons for the

offences under Section 294 and 506-II IPC, but has committed an error in convicting the appellants/respondents-Guru Dutt Shukla, Rani Devi, Prity @

Gudiya and Naval Kishore for offence under Section 498-A of IPC and accordingly, both the appeal decided analogously and decided by common

judgment dated 05.12.2014 and Criminal Appeal No. 416/2012 filed by the appellants has been allowed and all the accused/respondents have been

acquitted from the charges under Section 498-A of IPC and the appeal preferred by the complainant being Criminal Appeal No.419/2012 was

dismissed by the same judgment dated 05.12.2014. It is being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 05.12.2014 passed by the learned appellate

Court in Criminal Appeal No. 416/2012 and Criminal Appeal No. 419/2012 as well as the part of the judgment dated 27.11.2012 passed by the learned

trial Court, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges under Section 294 and 506-II of IPC, the present criminal revisions are

being filed. 7. It is alleged that the learned Appellant Court has committed grave error in acquitting all the accused persons from all the charges

despite of the fact that there is ample evidence available on record which is sufficient for convicting the accused persons-respondents. It is further

submitted that the learned appellate Court has considered the aspect that father of the complainant (PW-4) has stated in his cross examination and has

admitted the fact that there was no demand of dowry being made at any point of time. The learned Appellate Court has further considered the aspect

that complainant has made a letter the basis of her case, it is argued that the letter was posted by the complainant to her father informing about

harassment being caused to her and the demand of dowry being made to her husband, but the aforesaid letter could not have been placed on record.

Therefore, the learned Appellate Court has held that the aforesaid letter was important piece of evidence to corroborate the entire prosecution story.

It is argued that the statement of his brother and his friend who have categorically stated that regarding her marpeet and harassment and demand of

dowry has not been taken into consideration by the learned Appellate Court. It is argued that the learned trial Court has rightly found the accused-

respondents guilty of charges under Sections 498-A of IPC, but the aforesaid findings given by the learned trial Court has been reversed by the

learned Appellate Court without there being assigning any cogent reason in the same.

Learned counsel for the revisionist has drawn attention of this Court to the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that learned trial Court has

placed reliance upon the witness-Pradeep Kumar (PW-3) who is brother of the complainant as well as statement of Ravi Kumar (PW-6) who is his

friend, wherein they have categorically stated in their statements that on 30.06.2006 they went to the matrimonial house of the complainant, wherein,

they found some altercation taking place between complainant-Seema and her husband and in-laws. They have categorically stated that complainant-

Seema was being badly abused and beaten by the accused-respondents and they have made demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- in lieu of compromise between

the complainant and her husband. The aforesaid statements were duly supported by the statements of father and mother of the complainant i.e. (PW-

2) and (PW-4), but the aforesaid aspect has not been taken into consideration by the learned Appellate Court. It is further argued that the learned

Appellate Court has failed to take note of the fact that there was some matrimonial dispute between the parties, owing to which, the complainant went

to her parental house and started residing there. Thereafter a maintenance case was filed by complainant-Seema.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the statement of complainant-Seema, whereby she has categorically stated

that on 27.06.2006, her husband and in-laws have started harassing her and making demand of Rs. 2,00,000/-. She has further stated that the case

under Section 125 of Cr.P.C claiming maintenance has been closed down by way of compromise, but after closer of the case of maintenance, when

she went to her matrimonial house, where again she was harassed and demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- was made and on 30.06.2006, her brother and his

friend came to her matrimonial house to know whereabouts of the complainant and they saw that there was some altercation between the husband, in-

laws and the complainant and she was beaten and pushed out of the house saying that there cannot be any compromise without money and was asked

to bring Rs. 2,00,000/-. The aforesaid statement was duly supported by the statement of her brother (PW-3) and his friend (PW-6). Thus, the learned

trial Court has considered the aforesaid aspect of the case and has found that the offence under Section 498-A of IPC is clearly made out against the

four accused persons and accordingly, they were convicted under Section 498-A of IPC, but the learned Appellate Court has failed to consider the

aforesaid aspects of the case and has reversed the findings given by the learned trial Court. It is further argued that the statement of mother (PW-2)

and father (PW-4) of the complainant have not been taken into consideration by the learned Appellate Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has

drawn attention of this Court to statements of parents of the complainant as PW-2 and PW-4 and has argued that in examination in chief as well as in

cross examination the entire story of the prosecution is being supported. The factum of previous case of maintenance being closed down by way of

compromise is being mentioned in their statements, but the aforesaid aspect has not been taken into consideration by the learned Appellate Court. He

has drawn attention of this Court to para 7 onwards of the judgment of the trial Court wherein, the learned trial Court has considered the statements of

the complainant and other material witnesses. The factum of registration of the case under Section 125 of Cr.P.C for maintenance is taken note of by

the learned trial Court.

Considering the overall evidence available on record the learned trial Court has rightly arrived at conclusion that the offence under Section 498-A

is being made out against the respondents-accused except Richa, but the learned Appellate Court has not considered the aforesaid aspect of the case.

Therefore, she prayed for setting aside of the judgment of Appellate Court.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has denied all the arguments which is advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has

contended that learned Appellate Court has considered the aforesaid aspect of the case and appellants-respondents have rightly been acquitted from

all the charges. It is further argued that the learned Appellate Court has found that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges under Section 498-

A of IPC and the respondents have been acquitted from the aforesaid charges, whereas, the factum of charges under Section 294 and 506-

II of IPC were not found proved by the learned trial Court, then, there was no occasion to arrive at conclusion that the offence under Section 294 and

506-II of IPC are being made out against the respondents except Richa. The learned trial Court has rightly acquitted Richa of all the charges on the

basis of evidence available on record. It is further contended that the entire prosecution story itself is doubtful. The complainant has written a letter

and the same has laid the foundation of the case and thereafter, an FIR has been registered, but the aforesaid letter was neither being produced

before the police authorities, nor the same was being produced before the Court by the prosecution. On the contrary, father of the complainant i.e.

PW-4 has specifically admitted in para 8 of his cross examination that there was no demand of dowry being made at any point of time. Learned

counsel for the respondents has drawn attention of this Court to para 12 of the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that the prosecution has not

produced any documents (the letter) to show that any demand of dowry was being made by the husband and in-laws of the complainant. The

complainant has stated that she has posted a letter to her father informing about the harassment and demand of dowry, but the aforesaid letter neither

handed over to the police authorities nor the same was being produced by the prosecution. Even in the statement of the complainant, she has admitted

that the police station was just opposite to the post office, from where, she has posted the letter and If there is being any harassment regarding illegal

demand of dowry has been made by in-laws, then the matter could have been reported the police station then and there, but the same has not been

done and inspite going to police station she has gone to the post office. Even the demand which is shown by the complainant is of Rs. 2,00,000/-,

whereas, witnesses of the prosecution have categorically stated that the demand of Rs.1,00,000/- was being made. There is material deference

between the aforesaid two amounts. Learned counsel for the respondents has further drawn attention of this Court to document filed in defense i.e.

judgment and decree of divorce passed by the learned District Judge, Shivpuri in Case No. 18/2011 HMA dated 20.08.2013, wherein, marriage

between husband and the complainant dated 30.04.2002 has been dissolved. It is argued that the divorce case was filed on the ground of desertion and

false allegation being made by the wife/complainant against her husband. Counsel for the respondents has further drawn attention of this Court to para

19 of the judgment, wherein the statement of Dr. Bragbhan Singh Sengar (PW-10) is being dealt with. The doctor has not found any injuries on the

body of the complainant, thus, the prosecution story itself is falsified by the medical evidence. Under these circumstances, the learned Appellate Court

has not committed any error in acquitting the respondents from the charges under Section 498-A of IPC and the appeal filed by the complainant has

rightly been rejected. They prayed for dismissal of the present criminal revision petition.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

From perusal of the record, it is seen that there is concurrent finding recorded by the learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court with respect to

acquittal of Richa from all the charges. The learned trial Court has considered the aforesaid aspect of the case in para 29 and has observed that

marriage of Richa took place 5-6 years back and she was residing separately along with her husband and there was no occasion of harassment or

demand of dowry being made by Richa. Thus, she was acquitted from all the charges by the learned trial Court which is duly affirmed by the learned

Appellate Court. The complainant has failed to establish that Richa was residing with her and was abusing and harassing her and was making demand

of dowry. Thus, the findings recorded by both the Courts' regarding acquittal of Richa does not call for any interference especially in the revision

against acquittal, and against the against the concurrent findings given by the learned Courts below.

As far as the others respondents are concerned, they have already been acquitted by the learned trial Court under Section 206 and 506-II of IPC

and learned trial Court has convicted under Section 498-A of IPC for 1 year RI. The learned Appellate Court has reversed the findings given by the

learned trial Court on several grounds. The grounds which have been raised by the complainant as far as reversal of the judgment passed by the

learned Appellate Court is concerned, it is seen from the record that the complainant has failed to produce the letter which is said to have been posted

to her father mentioning all the allegations against in-laws and her husband regarding harassment and demand of dowry. It is further seen from the

record that the post office, from where, the aforesaid letter is said to have been posted is opposite to the police station, but the complainant has chosen

to post the aforesaid letter and not to inform the police authorities regarding the harassment and illegal demand of dowry. The approach of the

complainant appears to be unnatural. Apart from this, in the entire case the prosecution has not been produced the letter which is could be the vital

piece of evidence. The learned Appellate Court has further considered the aspect that the demand which have been raised is of Rs. 2,00,000/- as

pointed out by the complainant, whereas the demand which have been shown to have been made by the other witnesses (family members of the

complainant) is of Rs. 1,00,000/- which is considerably a different amount, causing material contradiction in the statement. The incident which is said

to have taken place on 30.06.2006 is not medically corroborated as so said injuries received by the complainant was not found by the doctor (PW-10).

Thus, the learned Appellate Court has arrived at conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges under Section 498-A of IPC

against the present respondents and has affirmed the finding given by the learned trial Court as far as charges under Section 294 and 506-II of IPC

are concerned.

It is a settled position of law laid down while dealing with the appeal/revision against acquittal, the findings given by the Courts below generally

should not be disturbed until and unless, there is substantive material available on record to reverse those findings even if two views are possible, the

view supporting in the accused should be taken.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kali Ram Vs. State of Himanchal Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 277 3has observed that “the golden thread

which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one

pointing towards its guilt and other pointing towards its innocence, the one favoring accused should be taken.†Certainly it is a primary principle that

the accused must be and not merely, may be guilty before the court, can be convicted and the mental distinction between may be and must be is long

and divides vague conjectures from such considerations.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Ram Niwas reported in 2010 (15) SCC 46 3has considered the similar aspect

and has followed the ratio laid down in the case of Kali Ram (Supra).

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and also the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid

cases, the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court appears to be justified and the same does not call for any interference in the present

criminal revision petitions. Accordingly, both the revision petitions fail and are hereby dismissed.