1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R GULAB RAM VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1077/2009 under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 31.07.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tibbi in Criminal Case No.362/2002. ............... Date of Judgment: 13 December, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI Mr.Pankaj Sharma for the petitioner. Mr.K.K.Rawal , Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT: The instant revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner Gulab Ram , s/o Gena Ram b/c Kamboj , r/o village Peer Kamariya, Tehsil, Tibbi , District Hanumangarh against the impugned order 2 dated 31.07.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tibbi in Criminal Case No.362/2002 arising out of FIR No.133/2001 of Police Station, Tibbi, who whereby acquitted Jeeta Ram, respondent No.2 from the charge of committing offence under section 498-A IPC. The brief facts of the case are that on 14.04.2001 the petitioner filed a written report at police station , Tibbi upon which FIR No.133/2001 was lodged. The report was to the effect that his daughter's marriage with respondent No.2 Jeeta Ram s/o Lakha Ram was solemnised on 22.06.1988 at village Peer Kamariya as per Hindu rites. He gave dowry articles to the in-laws of his daughter at the time of marriage . Thereafter her in-laws, along with her husband, started harassing her for want of dowry. Due to this the petitioner was forced to give more dowry in the form of cash as well as kind, but still Jeeta Ram, respondent No.2 continued to harass her. Ultimately , Jeeta Ram, respondent No. 2 demanded Rs.1.5 lac and the same being not given, she was turned out of the house. 3 On filing of above FIR police initiated investigation and filed charge sheet against Jeeta Ram,respondent No.2 for commission of offence under section 498-A and 406 IPC. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. During the trial prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses and got exhibited certain documents in support of its case. The statement of accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence one witness was got examined. Learned trial court acquitted respondent No.2 from the charge of offence u/s 498 -A IPC . Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tibbi the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court, suffers from illegality and impropriety and the evidence of the witnesses have not been made properly. In view of this fact, the order dated 31.7.209 requires to be set aside. 4 The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the learned trial court appreciated the evidence of PW/4 Gulab Ram and PW/5 Smt.Rani and PW/5 Smt.Rani deposed that her marriage took place 20 years earlier to the incident and this was a recurring feature and, therefore, she lodged the report after 20 years of her marriage. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that PW/1 Bhagwan Das and PW/2 Buta Ram did not corroborate the story of the demand of dowry by the non-petitioner Jeeta Ram and the learned trial court disbelieved the evidence of PW/4 Gulab Ram and PW/5 Smt.Rani and the order dated 31.07.09 of the learned trial court does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. I have perused the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court and the evidence recorded during the course of trial. PW/1 Bhagwan Das and PW/2 Buta Ram did not corroborate the prosecution story and PW/5 Smt.Rani deposed that her marriage with Jeeta Ram took place 20 years back of her recording of statement and the 5 learned trial court, while appreciating the evidence, noticed the contradiction in the statement of PW/4 Gulab Ram and PW/5 Smt.Rani. The jurisdiction of the revisional court, while exercising the powers under section 397 Cr.P.C., are limited and in case of acquittals the revisional court cannot substitute its own view upon the appreciation made by the trial court. The learned trial court rightly disbelieved the evidence of PW/4 Gulab Ram and PW/5 Smt.Rani and the learned trial court further observed that PW/5 Rani deposed about demanding of Rs.1.5 lac in the Panchayat, whereas PW/4 Gulab Ram did not depose anywhere about it. In view of the above facts, the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety and, therefore, requires to be confirmed and is confirmed and the revision petition filed by the petitioner Gulab Ram requires to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed at admission stage. (KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI),J. l.george