1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT SMT. PUSHPA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. SB Criminal Revision Pet. No. 274 of 2002 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated January 15, 2002 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1 Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 268A of 1994 whereby accused respondent was acquitted of the offence under section 498A IPC. Date of Order : April 17, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Ms. M.K.Kaushik, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Sharma, for the accused non-petitioner. Mr. Piyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Smt. Pushpa, against the order dated January 15, 2002 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1 Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 268A of 1994 whereby accused respondent was acquitted of the offence under section 498A IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on May 8, 1993, a complaint under section 156 2 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed before the ACJM No.2 Bharatpur, which was forwarded to the Police Station Nadbai and the SHO registered case No. 153 of 1993 for the offence under sections 498A and 406 IPC. In the complaint it was stated that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent Sardar Singh took place on May 11, 1986. The petitioner stayed for three days at the matrimonial home and thereafter did not return to matrimonial home. It was mentioned in the complaint that the accused respondents demanded in dowry a motor cycle and Rs. 50,000/-. Since the demand of dowry was not met the accused petitioner did not keep the petitioner with them. A civil dispute was also filed before the Additional District Judge No.1 Bharatpur which was decided by the said court on August 9, 1996 and decree of restitution of conjugal rights was passed by the said court in favour of the petitioner Smt. Pushpa. After investigation the police filed challan 3 before the court under section 498A against the accused respondent No.2. The charge under section 498A was also framed by the trial court against the accused respondent to which he denied the same and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case produced 7 witnesses and three documents. The statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. In defence the accused respondent produced four witnesses D/1 to D/4. and two documents Ex D/1 and D/2 were also produced. After hearing both the parties, the trial court acquitted the accused respondent from the charge under section 498A vide judgment dated January 15, 2002. Against this judgment of the ACJM, present revision petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial court has not considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses PW.1 to PW.7, who in their statements stated that the accused 4 respondent demanded one motor cycle and Rs. 50,000/- as dowry. Inspite of clear cut evidence, the trial court merely on the ground that the petitioner stayed for only three days with the accused respondent and there was no question of demanding any dowry from her. The accused respondent even denied to have married with the petitioner. But this part of the theory was rejected by the trial court on the basis of a judgment passed in favour of the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights. The accused respondents have not given any cogent reason for refusing to keep the petitioner at matrimonial home. Thus the order acquitting the accused non-petitioners is liable to be set aside. 4. The learned counsel for the accused non-petitioner 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, 5 documents and record passed the order of acquittal. The trial court given a finding that the petitioner stayed for only three days at matrimonial home and on account of the fact that the petitioner was not well she gone to her parental house. Thereafter she did not return to matrimonial home and in these circumstances the trial court gave a finding that there is no question of demanding any dowry by the accused respondent from her. The order of acquittal is based on sound reasonings. 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 judgment passed by the court below is perfectly according to law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same. I have gone through the judgment passed by the trial court. The trial court did not believe the prosecution witnesses in regard to demand of dowry. The trial 6 court gave a finding that two sisters married to two brothers and for only one sister they will demand dowry, that cannot be accepted. This allegation by the prosecution was rejected. Thus the order passed by the trial court cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. 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/