S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 237/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER Kumari Lehru Jaweri Versus The State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 237/2008 Date of Order : 01.12.2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI Mr. Sanjay Mathur for the petitioner Mr. Anil Upadhyay – Public Prosecutor BY THE COURT By this revision petition, petitioner Kumari Lehru Jaweri has challenged the judgment dated 09.01.2008 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 77/2007, whereby the learned trial court has acquitted respondent No. 2 Vijay Kumawat S/o Laxmi Lal from the charge of offence under Section 420 and 376 IPC. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.05.2007, complainant-petitioner Kumari Lehru Jaweri lodged a written Page 1 of 4 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 237/2008 report at Police Station Ambamata, District Udaipur stating inter alia that four years back she came to Udaipur and started to live at Dewali in a rented room in the house of Kishan Lal Kumawat, where she met accused-respondent Vijay Kumawat. The mother of Vijay Kumawat had suspicion about their relationship, therefore, she vacated that room and shifted to another rented room in the house of Nand Lal. Accused- respondent used to come to meet her and on the pretext of marrying with her, he developed physical relations with her and she also had to undergo abortion. In the month of April 2007, accused-respondent got engaged with some other girl and when she objected, then the accused-respondent gave her threatening. Thus, the accused-respondent sexually exploited her for four years on the pretext of marrying with her. On the basis of the aforesaid information, the police registered a case for the offence under Secton 420 and 376 IPC and started investigation and arrested the accused- respondent. After usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused-respondent before the competent court. The case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Udaipur and ultimately the case was transferred to the court of Page 2 of 4 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 237/2008 Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Udaipur. The learned trial court framed charge under Section 420, 376 IPC against the accused-respondent. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 8 witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Sushma Kumawat, P.W.2 Om Prakash, P.W.3 Mohan Bai, P.W.4 Kumari Lehru, P.W.5 Khumani Lal, P.W.6 Madan Singh, P.W.7 Pratap Singh and P.W.8 Sajjan Singh. The incriminating evidence adduced against the accused-respondent was put to him for explanation under Section 313 CrPC and the accused produced no evidence in his defence. After hearing both the parties, learned trial court vide the impugned judgment acquitted the accused- respondent from the charges levelled against him giving him the benefit of doubt. Aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court, present petitioner Kumari Lehru Jaweri has preferred this revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order passed by the learned trial court suffers from Page 3 of 4 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 237/2008 infirmity and illegality, therefore, it requires to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. P.W.4 Kumari Lehru, the complainant, herself deposed in her statement that the relations between her and the respondent No. 2 were with her consent. This witness did not support the facts narrated in the First Information Report (Ex.P.4) or the police statement (Ex.P.8). The petitioner herself was declared hostile. In my view, on the basis of the evidence of P.W.4 Kumari Lehru, no case is made out for interfering with the judgment dated 09.01.2008 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 77/2007. Accordingly, this revision petition filed by petitioner Kumari Lehru Jaweri is dismissed. [KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI],J. Pramod Page 4 of 4