Allahabad High Court
Smt. Aneeta Devi vs State Of U.P. And 7 Others on 17 July, 2019
Author: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3466 of 2015 Revisionist :- Smt. Aneeta Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Qazi Vakil Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Agni Pal Singh,Pratima Singh Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri Qazi Vakil Ahmad, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Agni Pal Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 8 and Sri Harish Chandra, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 29.6.2015 passed by learned District Judge, Kanpur Dehat in Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2014 as well as order dated 09.9.2013 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Court no. 2/A.C.J.M Kanpur Dehat in Complaint Case No. 1095 of 2013, under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC, P.S. Gajner, Kanpur Nagar by which, the learned court below acquitted opposite party nos. 2 to 8 from the charge under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC and an appeal was preferred before the District Judge, Kanpur Dehat, which was dismissed and the judgment of court below acquitting opposite party nos. 2 to 8 was upheld.
3. Aggrieved by impugned judgment, this criminal revision has been filed on the ground that the impugned judgment is illegal as the same is against the facts and evidence available on record. The learned court below committed gross illegality in disbelieving the evidence produced by the revisionist. The learned court below did not apply judicial mind and as such impugned judgment is illegal, improper and perverse. The learned court below passed the impugned judgment on surmises and conjectures and ignored the material evidence available on record which was in favour of revisionist.
3. The brief facts of the case are that opposite party nos. 2 to 8 were summoned for the offence under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC on a complaint filed by the revisionist stating that she was married with opposite party no. 2 Manoj Kumar Sonkar on 06.6.1997 according to Hindu Rituals and enough dowry was given and money was also spent in the marriage. After the marriage, the behaviour of opposite parties became very cruel and harassing and they used to make complaint with regard to less dowry being given in the marriage. The opposite parties were demanding Rs.25,000/- and motorcycle to enable her husband to do some business. When revisionist and her parents expressed their inability to pay Rs.25,000/-, for even small things she was beaten by her husband and her in-laws and in the early morning she was forced to carry 250 buckets of water and to do all works relating to buffaloes etc. Proper food was also not given to her. On 15.7.2000, she was badly beaten by opposite parties and she was forced to leave the matrimonial house. When her maternal uncle went to her in-laws house in April, 2001, the opposite parties said that she will be sent to her parental house only when it will be given in writing on stamp paper that if any thing happens to her or she dies they will not be responsible for the same. The complainant filed a case for maintenance in the court of IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat and on 05.5.2001, she went to police station Gajner for lodging an FIR, but report was not written and, therefore, she filed a case before the court.
4. After being summoned and after taking evidence under section 244 Cr.P.C., the charges were framed against opposite parties under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC and they were tried for the offence. In support of complaint, the complainant examined herself as P.W. 1 and also examined P.W. 2-Gandhu, P.W. 3-Hanuman and P.W. 4-Vinod. The statement of opposite parties was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. and after hearing both the parties, the learned trial court acquitted all the accused persons from the said charges. Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Sessions Judge and the same was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 29.6.2015.
5. It appears from both the judgments of learned court below that reason for acquittal is based on appreciation of evidence on record and both the court below found that evidence given from the side of the complainant was not adequate as the same was contradictory and both the court below recorded judgment of acquittal. For instance, it has been stated in the impugned judgments that it has been admitted by the complainant that marriage took place in the year 1997 and she lived in her matrimonial house for about one and half year. Therefore, the court below came to the conclusion that when marriage of complainant was performed in the year 1997 and she lived in her matrimonial house for about one and half year only, the question of committing marpeet with the complainant in her matrimonial house with her in-laws in the year 2000 does not arise. Moreover, it has been found that the grievance which was raised, was of 15.7.2000 and the effort of lodging FIR was made on 5.5.2001 and thereafter on 11.6.2001, the complaint was filed before the court. Therefore, the court below has found that it was unfair and unreasonable delay on the part of the complainant in invoking the criminal justice machinery for remedying her grievance. The court below also found that financial status of complainant was never such that opposite parties could demand any dowry from her and if Rs.25,000/- was demanded, the said demand was for doing business for the husband, hence the court below has rightly come to the conclusion that such demand does not come under the category of dowry demand.
6. The court below found that all three witnesses examined in support of complainant have not given any evidence that complainant was treated with cruelty because of non fulfillment of demand of dowry. Their evidence is hearsay as the same is based upon what complainant told to them and they were never a witness of any incident of cruelty with her. The court below also found that the complainant has stated so many things in her statement against the averments made in the complaint and by no evidence, it was established that she was treated with cruelty pursuant to demand of dowry. There was no injury report with regard to alleged marpeet with her. Therefore, considering the evidence in totality, both the court below came to the conclusion that the offence for which opposite parties were charged, was not established by the complainant.
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist has not been able to show that there was any jurisdictional error in the finding of learned court below nor it has been shown that there is material irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgement. The learned trial court has acquitted the opposite parties and that judgment has been further affirmed by the appellate court. In such a situation, there is no occasion for this Court to invoke the revisional jurisdiction and interfere in the impugned order nor any fruitful purpose will be achieved by interfering in the impugned order.
8. In the result, I find no force in the revision. The revision is, accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.7.2019 RCT/-