State vs Rajendra Jadli and Others

Dharam Veer, J.—This appeal, preferred by the State/appellant u/s 378(3) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as ''Cr.P.C.''), is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.9.1996 passed by the 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Case No. 587/96, State v. Rajendra Jadli and Ors., whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the charges punishable u/s 498A, 406 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC) and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short, ''the Act'').

Briefly stated facts of the case are that PW1 Smt. Sunita Jadli lodged a report Ex. Ka-3 on 29.3.1993 at 11.30 am with PS Cantt. Dehradun with the averments that she was married to respondent No. 1 Rajendra Jadli on 21.2.1992 at Dehradun as per Hindu rites. In the marriage her father Satya Prasad (PW2) had given dowry as per his status. She has further averred that after the marriage, respondents demanded Rs. 60,000/- more stating that the same was promised to be given after the marriage which was not given and because of this she was being harassed by the respondents. On the basis of this report, chick FIR was prepared and necessary entries were made in the GD. Investigation of this case was entrusted to SI Sharad Kumar. The I.O. during the course of investigation, recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completing the investigation, he filed the chargesheet against the respondents u/s 498A, 406 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Act.

On 3.6.1995, learned 3rd ACJM, Dehradun framed the charges against the respondents for the offence punishable u/s 498A, 406 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Act. The charges was read over and explained to the respondents, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 Smt. Sunita Jadli; PW2 Satya Prasad and PW3 Khushal Singh Bhandari.

Thereafter statements of the respondents were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The oral and documentary evidence were put to them in question form, who denied the allegations made against them. In defence, MC Badola was examined as DW1. In the documentary evidence, they produced letters Ex. Kha-1 to Kha-4 written by the PW2 Satya Prasad, father of the complainant Sunita Jadli (PW1).

After appreciating the evidence and after hearing learned Counsel for the parties, learned 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun vide his judgment and order dated 17.9.1996 acquitted the respondents of the charges levelled against them as discussed above. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 17.9.1996, the State has preferred the present appeal.

Learned Brief Holder for the State argued that the case against the respondents is proved beyond reasonable doubt but the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence adduced on record and has acquitted them. Contrary to it, learned Counsel for the respondents argued that learned trial court has rightly acquitted the respondents as prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the respondents. He further submitted that later on dissolution of marriage also took place between the complainant Smt. Sunita Jadli and her husband Rajendra Jadli i.e. the respondent No. 1 and thereafter Smt. Sunita got remarried with some other person and respondent No. 1 Rajendra Jadli also got remarried with some other girl. He also submitted that articles given in dowry were also returned by the respondents.

I find force in the arguments of learned Counsel for the respondents for the following reasons:

(i) That the only allegation made against the respondents is that they demanded Rs. 60,000/-from PW2 Satya Prasad through her daughter Smt. Sunita (PW1) alleging that at the time of marriage the same was promised to be given, but respondents have stated that there was no such agreement and they had never demanded any money. Four letters Ex. Kha-1 to Kha-4 have been adduced on record in defence which were written by PW2 Satya Prasad, father of Smt. Sunita. Letters Ex. Kha-2 to Kha-4 were written by him to his son-in-law Rajendra Jadli, respondent No. 1, while letter Ex. Kha-1 was written by Satya Prasad to Mr. SN Uniyal, common friend of both the parties in Madras. In all these letters, PW2 Satya Prasad, who is father of PW1 Smt. Sunita has not mentioned any such demand of Rs. 60,000/-. Contrarily, he tried to convince his son-in-law as well as his daughter to leave peacefully and happily together and to take care of each other. It reveals that there was no such demand of money and it was only some minor family difference between the husband and wife.

(ii) That marriage of PW1 Smt. Sunita with respondent No. 1 Rajendra Jadli took place on 21.2.1992 at Dehradun and thereafter on 15.7.1992, she gone along with her husband to Madras where he was serving and remained there up to 30.9.1992. They did not enjoy good relations as wife and husband and subsequently their marriage was also dissolved by a decree of dissolution of marriage because of egoism as Smt. Sunita was not satisfied with the status of Rajendra Jadli and she wanted to marry some officer-class person and Rajendra Jadli was only an Airman and this fact is corroborated by the deposition of DW1 MC Badola.

(iii) That there is not even an iota of evidence to support the allegation that the respondents ever demanded Rs. 60,000/- in dowry and harassed Smt. Sunita for the said demand.

(iv) That PW2 Satya Prasad has admitted in his cross-examination that the marriage was solemnized according to wishes of both the parties and the respondents had not demanded anything in dowry and whatever he had given in the marriage that were given out of his own will and desire.

Learned Counsel for the respondents lastly argued that where two views are possible and one of the possible views has been taken by the trial court, then the appellate court shall not ordinarily interfere with the judgment of acquittal. Reliance has been placed on paras 7 and 8 of the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Singh v. State of M.P. reported in (2007) 3 SCC (Cri.) 173, which are reproduced as under:

The High Court while dealing with the matter, in our considered opinion, failed to apply the proper tests in deciding a case where a judgment of acquittal has been recorded. The views of the learned trial judge cannot be said to be wholly unsustainable. It is now well known that if two views are possible, the appellate court shall not ordinarily interfere with the judgment of acquittal. We do not, however, mean to lay down the law that the High Court, in a case where a judgment of acquittal is in question, would not go into the evidence brought on record by the prosecution or by the State but we would like to point out that even if the High Court reversed the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court, it is incumbent on the High Court to arrive at the conclusion that no two views are possible.

We, therefore, having regard to the fact situation of the instance case, are of the opinion that as two views are possible, the High Court should not have interfered with the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Sessions Judge. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and allow this appeal. The appellant is in jail, he is directed to be released forthwith if not required in connection with any other case.

On the basis of the evidence and legal proposition discussed above, I am of the considered view that when one view is also possible which was taken by the trial court, then as per the aforesaid judgment of Kalyan Singh (Supra), the interference with the judgment of the trial court at this stage is not warranted. Therefore, there is no reason to disagree with the view taken by the trial court on the basis of the evidence discussed above and, as such, the prosecution has not able to prove its case against the accused respondent beyond reasonable doubt.

In view of my above discussion and conclusion, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused respondents beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable u/s 498A, 406 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Act. I am in total agreement with the views and findings recorded by the trial court and, therefore, impugned judgment and order dated 17.9.1996 passed by the trail court is correct and justified and it does not warrant any interference by this Court.

In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order dated 17.9.1996 passed by the 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Case No. 587/96, State v. Rajendra Jadli and Ors., whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the charges punishable u/s 498A, 406 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Act is hereby upheld. Let the lower court record be sent back.