IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT SMT. MAMTA VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. SB Criminal Revision Pet. No.290 OF 2007 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated January 17, 2007 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Niwai (Distt. Tonk) in Criminal case No. 990 of 2003 by which the accused respondents were acquitted for the offences under sections 498-A, 406, 354, 341 and 323 IPC. Date of Order : January 19 , 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Sanjay Singhal, for the petitioner. Mr. Prahlad Sharma, for the non-petitioners. Mr. R.S.Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by petitioner Mamta, against the order dated January 17, 2007 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Niwai (Distt. Tonk) in Criminal case No. 990 of 2003 by which the accused respondents were acquitted for the offences under sections 498-A, 406, 354, 341 and 323 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on January 13, 2003, the petitioner filed a complaint before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Niwai, Tonk against the accused respondents, Shivraj, Ram Kishan, Smt. Gheesi, Rameshwer and Girraj and the said complaint was sent to the police Station Niwai, Tonk under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The said complaint was registered as FIR No. 11 of 2003 for offences under sections 498 A, 406, 354, 341 and 323 IPC against the accused respondents. After investigation, the police filed challan under sections 498A, 406, 354,341 and 323 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused respondents for the above offences and the trial court after recording evidence and hearing both the parties acquitted the accused respondents No.2 to 6 from the charges under sections 498A, 406, 354, 341 and 323 IPC vide judgment dated January 17, 2007. The complainant petitioner filed the instant revision petition against the order of acquittal. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial court committed an illegality in acquitting the accused respondents for the offences under sections 498 A, 406, 354, 341, and 323 IPC. The FIR, and the statements under sections 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses specifically show that the accused respondents committed the above offences. The trial court failed to appreciate the provisions of sections 498A, 406, 354, 341 and 323, which clearly show that all ingredients of aforesaid sections fulfilled prima facie according to FIR and statements and documents produced by the prosecution. There is material against the accused respondents, but the trial court failed to consider the material. 4. The learned counsel for the accused respondents and the learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and stated that the court below after considering all the evidence, documents and record passed the order of acquittal. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the court below. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. The allegation in the complaint was that marriage of Mamta with Shivraj took place in 1983 and during 8 years from 7.1.2003 the inlaws of Mamta demanded Rs. 51,000/- from Mamta for gold smith business and since the demand was not fulfilled they have harassed her for dowry. Independent witnesses produced by the prosecution PW.7, PW.9 and PW.10 were declared hostile. It is alleged in the complaint that on account of incident dated January 8, 2003, she suffered fracture. The medical evidence produced by the prosecution failed to show the injuries pointed out by the complainant petitioner in the complaint. The trial court considered all these allegations in detail and the charges levelled against the accused respondents were not found to be proved and they have been acquitted. The judgment passed by the court below is perfectly according to law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same. The court's attention was drawn on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umrao Vs. State of Harayana & Ors. SC 2006 Vol.10 Page 136 in which their 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.” 6. Thus the order passed by the court below does not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction and the revision petition stands dismissed. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/