1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ORDER Mst. Urmila Vs. The State of Raj. & Ors. SB CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.859/2002. Under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. DATE OF ORDER: 2nd September, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Mr. S.K. Gupta for the petitioner. Mrs.Nirmala Sharma PP for the State. Mr. Devendra Raghav for the respondents. BY THE COURT: In this revision petition challenge has been made to the judgment dated 4th June, 2002 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli District Karauli acquitting the accused-respondents no.2 to 4 from the offence under section 498A IPC. Briefly stated the facts for the disposal of this revision petition are that a complaint was filed by the petitioner on 30.3.1990 before the learned trial court with the averments that in the year 1985 she was married to accused Shyam Singh as per Hindu rites. At the time of marriage proper dowry was given. Her in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry and started harassing her. In the year 1986 the petitioner was thrown out of the house with the instruction that she would be permitted to live with them if 2 she would bring 5 tola gold, one refrigerator and Rs.15,000/- in cash. It is also averred that in the year 1989 a divorce petition was filed by Magan Singh but on the persuasion made by them and assurance given to her that in future she will be dealt with properly, she came back to her in-laws house, but their behavior did not change. It is also averred that after 1986 she came to her in-laws house on 6.3.1990. On that day her husband was not there and on 7.3.1990 again the demand was made. She was also beaten. She sustain injuries. Her medical examination was also got done. The complaint so filed before the learned trial court was sent under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the concerned police station where a case No.121/1990 was registered under sections 323, 342, 392 and 498A IPC and after investigation it was found that no case was made out, as such final report was submitted. The learned trial court thereafter recorded statement of complainant and took cognizance against the accused-respondents under section 498A IPC. The accused was tried. In all statements of five witnesses were recorded. In the statements recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused stated that they were falsely implicated in the case. No evidence in defence was adduced. The learned trial court on finding that in relation to an incident took place in the year 1986, complaint was filed in the year 1990 was firstly contradictory in relation to incident and secondly it was barred by limitation. The learned trial court finding that the prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the accused 3 were liable to be acquitted from the charge levelled against them under section 498A IPC, acquitted the accused. Hence, this revision petition has been filed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial court has committed serious illegality in not considering the matter as a continuing offence. It is contended that in the complaint in relation to the incident of 1990 description ha sbeen given, therefore, the accused were liable to be convicted. Learned counsel has read over the complaint and also statements of witnesses. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the order of acquittal normally no interference is required to be made until it is found that the courts have misread the evidence. I have considered the submissions made before me. In the present matter, the point for consideration is as to whether the learned trial court has committed illegality in acquitting the accused for the offence alleged to have been committed by them under section 498A IPC. It is to be seen that in this case, this court issued notice only to the husband-respondent no.4. Other respondents, father- in-law and mother-in-law were left. It further appears that the important aspect of the matter is that on filing complaint, the police after investigation reached to the conclusion that no case was made out, it is only thereafter the cognizance was taken in the 4 matter. In the complaint in para 1 in relation to cruelty allegations were made and regarding incidents of 1986 whereas in the year 1990 complaint was filed. Thus, there is no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that in relation to the incident of 1986, within the prescribed period of limitation for filing the complaint as per the provisions of section 468 Cr.P.C., no complaint was filed. It is also to be seen that in the statements of witnesses there are material contradictions in relation to demand of dowry. The statements of witnesses are contradictory to each other. The learned trial court has discussed the entire evidence in detail. In the instant case, Ex.D-1 was also produced in the court which is a compromise entered between the parties. In relation to alleged incident of 1990 in the complaint there are different versions of the witnesses. In view of the evidence recorded in this case and the finding arrived at by the learned trial court, it cannot be said that the learned trial court has misread the evidence. The contentions of the learned counsel are not liable to be accepted as the learned trial court has properly appreciated the evidence. The position of law is also settled on the point that normally the finding of acquittal should not be disturbed by the courts unless it is found that the evidence recorded in the case has been misread or the relevant material placed before the court was ignored. In the instant case, I do not find any such illegality in the impugned order of acquittal. This revision petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5 In the result, the revision petition stands dismissed. (S.P. PATHAK,J)