1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Smt. Suman Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.942/2009) Date of Order :- 21th October, 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.J.P. Gupta, for the petitioner. Mr.Javed Chaudhary, Public Prosecutor. Mr.Vinay Pal Yadav, for the accused-respondents. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.05.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate (First Class) South, Ajmer wherein the learned Judge has acquitted the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 for offences under Sections 498A & 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.03.2004, the petitioner-complainant, Smt. Suman submitted a report before the S.H.O. Women Police Station, Alwar Gate, Ajmer stating therein that on 15.05.1989, her marriage was solemnized with the respondent No.2, Suraj Bhan and in 1998 her Gona (Muklawa) took place. In the marriage her parents gave many dowry articles according to their capacity. But neither her husband, nor her in-laws were happy with the quantum of dowry given by her parents. Therefore, they started to torture her. It was further stated that they pressurized her to have their tractor repaired by her father, otherwise they would throw her out of the matrimonial home. The petitioner's brother got the respondent's tractor repaired from the Pratap Auto Mobile. He incurred Rs.35,000/- in getting the tractor repaired. Inspite of this, her in-laws continued 2 with the cruelty. They told her to either bring the money from her father, or to bring a truck from him. It was further stated that on 18.07.2000, she gave birth to a daughter. All the expenses incurred in the delivery were borne by her parents. Thereafter, the husband again and again tortured her and demanded a truck. When she told him that her parents are incapable of buying a truck, she was beaten by her husband, and the in-laws. Eventually, she was thrown out from the matrimonial home. It was further stated that her 'Stridhan' is in the possession of the accused-respondents. When she demanded the same, they have refused to return it. On the said report, on 24.03.2004 a FIR, FIR No.31/2004 was registered at Police Station Women, Ajmer for offences under Section 498A and 406 IPC. The said FIR was registered against seven persons. But, after a thorough investigation, the police filed a charge- sheet only against the respondent Nos.2 to 4 for offences under Sections 498A & 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Thereafter, the learned trial court framed the charges against the accused-respondents for the above mentioned offences. In support of its case, prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses and also exhibited twelve documents. The accused-respondents did not produce any evidence. After hearing both the parties, vide judgment dated 14.05.2009, the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondents for offences under Sections 498A & 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. J.P. Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has faulted in declaring the 3 petitioner as a hostile witness. Secondly, there is sufficient evidence in the form of the petitioner's testimony to prove a case for offences under Sections 498A & 406 IPC. Therefore, the learned Judge has erred in acquitting the accused-respondents for the said offences. On the other hand, Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav, the learned counsel for the accused-respondents, has contended that the complainant's testimony was demolished in her cross-examination. In her cross-examination, she clearly admitted that there was no dispute between the parties prior to the birth of her daughter. There was some dispute that arose between the parties only thereafter. Secondly, the creditworthiness of the complainant herself is doubtful as she has given a self-contradictory statement before the court. Thirdly, the learned Judge has meticulously examined the evidence and the testimony of the complainant, and has rightly concluded that no offence under Sections 498A & 406 IPC is made out. Therefore, the learned counsel has supported the impugned judgment. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment. Even if the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted that the prosecution had faulted in declaring the petitioner as a hostile witness, even then a bare perusal of her testimony clearly reveals that she is not a witness of sterling worth. Although in her examination-in-chief, she claims that she was subjected to physical cruelty by the accused-respondents, in her cross- examination, she readily admits that there was no dispute between her 4 and the accused-respondents prior to the birth of her daughter. Neither she, nor her father have been able to tell the court as to the amount of property given to her at the time of marriage. Nor there is any evidence which shows that any demand was made for the return of the 'Stridhan'. Once the witness has fautered, once her testimony has been shaken in the cross-examination, then the learned trial court is justified in not believing the testimony of the said witness. Moreover, a bare perusal of the impugned judgment clearly reveals that the learned Judge has meticulously examined and has validly appreciated the evidence produced by the prosecution. Since the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the learned Judge had no other option, but to acquit the accused-respondents for the offences under Sections 498A & 406 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In this view of the matter, there is neither any illegality, nor any perversity in the impugned judgment. Hence, the petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-