Judgment:
Criminal Revision No.369/2013 08.04.2013 Shri K.K.Gautam, Advocate for the applicant.
None for the respondents No.1 to 3.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.
Heard on admission.
The applicant/complainant has preferred this revision against the order dated 10.12.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Pawai in Criminal Appeal No.61/2012 whereby the judgment dated 25.1.2012 passed by the learned JMFC Pawai in Criminal Case No.330/2007 was confirmed in which the respondents No.1 to 3 were acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.
The prosecution's case, in short, is that the complainant had lodged a written FIR Ex.P-1 on 10.8.2006 to the Superintendent of Police, Rewa that her marriage took place with one Rajnish Vishwakarma on 16.5.2005.
Thereafter the respondents No.1 to 3 were harassing her for demand of dowry of Rs.50,000/-.
They demanded for utensils, refrigerator, gas stove and so many things, though her husband was supporting her.
On 2.7.2006 she was being assaulted by the respondents, and therefore the complainant informed her father about the incident.
Hence, her younger brother Sanjeev was being sent by her father.
On 3.7.2007 when she was going back to her father's house along with her brother, the respondents took the suitcase of the complainant and took the entire ornaments.
They gave a threat for brining a sum of Rs.50,000/-.
After due investigation, the SHO of Police Station Anantpur District Rewa had filed a charge sheet before the trial Court.
The respondents abjured their guilt.
They did not take any specific plea, but they have stated that they were falsely implicated in the matter.
However, no defence evidence was adduced.
After considering the prosecution evidence, the learned JMFC Pawai acquitted the respondents No.1 to 3 from the charge of offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC.
The appeal filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C.filed by the applicant was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pawai.
After considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant, it is apparent that the victim Savita Vishwakarma (PW-1) visited the house of the respondents only for three times.
In first-two times nothing was done with her, but she was called for the third time when her grand mother-in-law had expired.
She reached to the house of the respondents on 1.7.2006 and she went back on 3.7.2007 and in the duration of these two- three days, she had alleged about the harassment with the pretext of dowry demand.
If the evidence of Savita Vishwakarma (PW-1).Shivkumari (PW-2).Sanjiv Kumar (PW-3) and Ramdas Vishwakarma (PW-4) is examined, then they have stated omnibus allegation of their demand, for example cash of Rs.50,000/-, refrigerator, washing machine etc.The complainant had examined the various witnesses which were the neighbours of the respondents.
Out of them Gomti (PW-5) and Moolchand (PW-6) have turned hostile, whereas Shakuntala (PW-7) has stated that she was told by the complainant that the respondents were demanding of gas stove and cooler.
Similarly, Gyanwati (PW-8) has stated that the respondents were demanding a gas stove.
Looking to the story of demand told by the independent witnesses, it appears that they were tutored by the relatives of the complainant, and therefore they could not say much about the demand.
The independent witnesses could not support that there was a demand of Rs.50,000/- or refrigerator or any big thing.
Under such circumstances, if there was a demand of cash and refrigerator, then the complainant should have informed the witnesses to whom she informed about the demand, and therefore it appears that a false allegation is prepared by the complainant with the help of her father and brother.
Looking to the contradictions between the statements of interested witnesses and independent witnesses Gyanwati and Savita, it appears that there was no such demand made by the respondents.
If the FIR Ex.P-1 is perused, then it would be apparent that the FIR was prepared by some law knowing person and it was lodged after five weeks of the last incident.
The reason of delay could not be explained by the complainant.
But it appears that the complainant went back to her father's house and she called her husband to her father's house and she was residing with her husband comfortably.
When her husband reached to the house of her father, then she lodged an FIR against the respondents.
The witnesses Gyanwati has accepted that the husband of the complainant is residing with his wife in the house of his father- in-law.
It is apparent from the evidence given by the various witnesses that there was no dowry demand from the side of the respondents till third round of the complainant.
The complainant visited the house of the respondents because her grand mother-in-law had expired.
She went to the house of the respondents on 1.7.2006 where she resided only for a day and thereafter she called her brother and thereafter they left on 3.7.2006.
It is accepted by the parents of the complainant that the ornaments etc.were given by the respondents and their relatives, and therefore when the complainant was visiting to the house of the respondents without stay, then certainly they were entitled to get the ornaments back from the complainant, and therefore if they took those ornaments, then it was not a harassment to the complainant, because the complainant was not willing to reside in the house of the respondents.
Looking to the conduct of the complainant that she left the house of the respondents within two days without any grievance and problem and thereafter she called her husband and when her husband reached to the house of his father-in-law, then an FIR was lodged by the complainant against the respondents.
It was not possible of the respondents to harass the complainant within two days for dowry demand etc.It appears that a pretext was created by the complainant so that she may not be forced to reside in the house of the respondents and she wanted to reside with her parents.
Therefore, within two days she left the house of the respondents and thereafter a fake case has been registered against the respondents.
Under such circumstances, looking to the conduct of the complainant and her husband, it appears that a case of dowry demand and harassment was prepared by the complainant with the help of some law knowing person, and therefore an FIR was lodged in such a manner.
The learned JMFC and the learned Additional Sessions Judge have rightly acquitted the respondents from the charge of offence under Section 498-A of IPC.
No illegality or perversity is visible in the impugned judgments of both the courts below.
There is no basis by which the present revision can be accepted.
Consequently, the revision filed by the present applicant is hereby dismissed at motion stage.
A copy of this order be sent to both the courts below along with their records for information.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari