Sushila vs Prem Chand and Others

M.C. Sharma, J.—This Cr. Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 1st March, 2006 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malpura, District Tonk in Cr. Case No. 250/2002, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under Sections 498A and 406 IPC.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

"Complainant-petitioner lodged FIR on 7.6.2001 with Police Station, Malpura, for the offence under Sections 498 A and 406 IPC. After investigation, the police submitted the Final Report. The complainant petitioner submitted the protest petition, whereupon the statement of complainant and witnesses were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.. The trial court took cognizance against the accused respondents for the offence under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. Thereafter the trial court framed charges against the accused respondents for the aforesaid offences, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution produced its witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statement of the respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court passed the impugned judgment dated 1.3.2006 acquitting the accused respondents for the aforesaid offences."

Against the said judgment of the trial court dated 1.3.2006, this revision petition was preferred.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that impugned judgment is contrary to the law, facts and material on record. He has further contended that while acquitting the accused respondents, the learned trial court did not appreciate that there was sufficient evidence available on record to connect the accused respondents with the offence alleged against them. The court below has failed to appreciate the evidence of prosecution witnesses and recorded acquittal on the basis of minor contradictions. He has further contended that while acquitting the accused respondents, the learned trial court has unnecessarily been swayed by the fact that father of the complainant was a police man and he was expected to act differently and rather in unorthodox manner than a common man, who would have acted in the given circumstances. The testimony of Dr. Arjun Das PW-5 has proved that the petitioner was subjected to harassment by the accused respondents on 12.4.2001 leading to her hospitalization, but the learned trial court has discarded this sterling worth evidence on flimsy and arbitrary grounds. He has further contended that while acquitting the accused respondents, the learned trial court has given undue weightage to the fact that payment of Rs. 25,000/- by father of the complainant by way of dowry was not mentioned in the FIR. In this regard, the learned trial court has failed to appreciate that payment of Rs. 25,000/- by way of dowry was well established from the evidence on record and mere absence of this fact in the FIR could not be a ground to acquit the accused respondents, therefore, judgment passed by the trial court deserves to be quashed and set-aside and the accused respondents should be convicted for the alleged offences.

On the other hand, Mr. Peeyush Kumar, learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same. He has contended that the trial court, after due appreciation of evidence, has passed the judgment, hence no interference is required by this Court in the judgment passed by the trial court.

The court''s attention was also drawn on the following judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court:--

"Umrao v. State of Harayana & Ors. SC 2006 (10) Page 136 in which the Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in para 26 that "it is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below."

Looking to the evidence just discussed above, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused respondents and the learned trial Court was right in acquitting the accused respondents for the alleged offences. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court as the same appears to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case.

It may be stated that in appeal against acquittal though powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusions are as extensive as in an appeal against an order of conviction, yet as a rule of prudence, it should always give proper weightage and consideration to the views of the trial judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and thus, High Court should not ordinarily disturb the order of acquittal.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned PP and also gone through the record of the case.

Having gone through the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court, I find that the learned trial court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against the accused respondent/s. Therefore, I do not want to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court and the revision petition filed by the complainant-petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the revision petition filed by the complainant-petitioner fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of the trial court acquitting the accused respondents.