^ \:: eS^ 1 I-!'';^ 's, ''' ]§ tf ^ !B€r'/W -y --;"°\ •>&, j l' State of Madhya Pradesh (Now CbIiattisKarhi Raiiiesh Kuinar and aiiofher Post for judgment on p.03.2010 /, re 1 -r- State of Madliya Pradesh gai-b) (Now Chhattisgarbl 1. 2. Rainesh Kiiiuar, S/o Ramsewak Shivhare, aged 30 years, Sudesh Kuiu.ar S/o Ram.sewalt Shivhare, aged 26 years, R/o Takafkur District BflaspuT (MP) (Now CG) T A/2, A TflffOT1 Ar</^rTTTUTtA'? TT^% *a?7Q IV 'Sf^SJLr ^a.l.S'^l£i,1E»3ii ^.f^\f9Jia. 5. ^^Le U f Sy <3 £O |fij ^/£r»jE'«^/« Shri Arviiid Shukla, Paael Lawyer for the appellant/ State. Shri Rakesh Paudey, couasel for fh.e respondents. (DeUvered on\7.03.2010) 1. The State/appeUant has preferred fhis appeal again.st Uie order of acquittal dated 28,10.1998, passed by the Judicial Magistt-ate First Class, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No. 413/1997, whereby the leamed J.M.P.C. has acquitted the respondents of the charge under Section 498 aud 498-A/34 ofthe IPC. 2. The brief case of the prosecution is that tlie coinplainaiit Kamlesh was m.arried to the accused/respondent No.l- Raruesh on 6.5.1994. She was residiiig wifh her husbaiid ia her niatrim.orual house. After maiTiage, the accused/respon.dents were coiitinuously treating ttie coiuplaiiiaat wifh cruelty on '\ ^] acco'ant ofdeDiaiid ofdowiy Rs.20,000/-. The coinplainant weiit to faer parents house ana. on retumiiig bofa the accused/ respondeiLts i.e. Raiaesli aad Sudesh started harassing her for Rs.20,000/-. According fhe coiaplednaiit, younger brofher of her husbaad tried to plit her "Aaiichal of the sari" oa fire. This was mibrm.ed by her to her lafher bv a letter dated 4.7.1994. Her fatb.er caiiie to her ia-laws house, but tlie accused/respondents mis'behaved with him and demaiided Rs.20,000/- on 23.10.1994, Thereaiter, fhe accused- Ramesh left the coBiplaitiaut at fiie Railway Station of Chaifh.ari aiid told her to briiig Rs.20,000/ frora her fafher, ofherwise, she would have to beai- consequences. After ttie uicident, the com.plainaiit lodged report on 11.12.1994 with fhe Police Station Chaithari, tbereafter; fhe inatter was referred to TaMiatpur PoUce Station. Statein.ents ofthe witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After coaipletion of investigation, c'harge sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspiu'. 3. The Judicial Magistrate First Class framed cliarges under Sectious 498 aad 498-A/34 of fhe IPC against ftie accused/ respondeiits aiid iead over aad explaiaed fhe same to ttiein, who abjured the guilt a&d pleaded ttiat fhey have been falsely iiiLplicated in tbe case. 4. The leanied Judicial Magisti-ate First Class, BUaspur after evaluatiug the evidence available on record aad heariiie the ccunsel for respective parties, acquitted fhe respondents of fhe chai-ge uader Sectioas 498 and 498-A of fhe IPC. Hence, tlie State has filed this appeal. 5. Leanied counsel for the State arsued ttiat fhe lower Court has disbelieved fhe evidence produced toy ftie prosecution. It has n '^ s?fe i' ?'"1'S (• iiot properly appreciated fhe evidence, The leamed lower court ougbt to have beUeved ffae evidence of prosecution because fliere are aiaple evideuce to convict fhe person. Thus, the leamed lower Court has eiTed in. acquitting fhe accused/respondents. 6. On fhe ofher haad, leamed counsel for the respondents supported fhe judgment of acquittal of fhe respondents. 7. I have heard leamed counsel for the parti.es at lengfh and have also perused fhe record of fhe lower coiu-t, 8. It is clear fhat Kamlesh was niarried to Raniesh Kum.aT on. 6.5.1994. Sudesh (respondent No.2) is the younger brother of her husband. According to tiie evidence of Karalesti (PW-3) th.at alter laarriage as soon as she carue to her Diauimoru.al house, flie accused persons were 'harassiag lier lor uioney. They deiiianded Rs.20,000/- . Slie has also stated fb.at when she retumed back from. tlie parents house, fhe accused/respondents assaulted ber aad tb.e younger brotlier of her husbaad- Sudesh put her "Aanchal of fhe sari" on fii-e, wfaereupon, sbe ivrote letter Ex.P/ 1 to her fatL.er. It is also clear froia the evidence of fhis witaess fhat wuen lier father came to her luatriinonial house, fhe accused/respondents did not behave properly with him, fherefore, bis fafh.er returued back. Her sister-Poonam stayed for few days in her house. Poonam. (PW-l)has deposed that on 8.7.94, she cam.e to Bilaspur along witfa her father. Her father was talcing treatm.ent at Bilaspur. Theu she went to Takhatpur to her sister's house, whereas, Kainlesh (FW-3) bas not stated rf-s'fr- -dL 11C1 sister caine along with her fath.er and the accuset respondents inisbehaved wifh her lafher and fh.erefore, her fafh.er retunied back and her sister stayed fhere. Stateiaents of both the witnesses are cou.tradictory. Poonaia has deposed that 1 accused/respondents Iiave assaulted her sister aiid they deuianded inoney. She has also stated fb.at Sudesh (brother-in- law) set fire fhe "sari aanchal" of her sister aad on lieanag ciies of her sister she went to kitchen and saved her sister bv extiiigiushing th.e fire. Poonaiu has stated fhat 2-3 ttmes brofher-in-law of her sister tried to bum the face of her sister, but no such version. has been deposed by Kaiulesh (coiaplainant) ia. her evidence, This is also an. iiaportant contradictioii. It is clear froin fhe stateinent of Poonani that in. the night of 24.10.94, her sister suddenly reached their house aad told that her husbaiid aad younger brother-iti-law left her at the rsilway station and fhey had told her to coine v.ith. Rs.20,000/-, As per tfie PoUce Stateiaent of this witness, nam.e of Sudesh has not been m.entioned. CoinplaiLiaiit Kainlesh has statecl fhat at Police Station Chaifhari, fhey have lodged a written coiiiplaint wifh fhe Police Statioa Chaithari, whereupon F.S.R, Ex. P/4 was recorded. Accordiag to her, they were thirLking fhat eveiytlung would be got setfled, therefore, the report was not lodged imjaiediately. In para 7 of her stateiaent the coiiiplaiaaat lias deposed fb.at when tlie letter Ex.P/1 was written, Poonam was not ia her house at Takhatpur. She has stated fhat Poonam as at second tune ia her house when her sad aaiichal was put on fire, whereas, nofhing has been inentioned ia. fhe letter Ex.P/ 1 that her san's aaachal was set on fire at second tmie neither it has been luentioned in Ex. P/3 aad Ex. P/4 about on setting fu-e. Sudaaia (PW-2) has deposed fliat wlien he weat to bring his daughter, tamily lueiabers of her daughter niisbehaved wifh Mm, therefore, he iiiiinediately retumed back artd his younger daughter Poonam stayed there. But as per the stateinent of Poonaia, his fatlier was i!l aad was talcing ta-eataxient at Bilaspur, tlierefore, she went alone to her sister's aouse. It. is also aii iruportant contradiction. Her father has stated about fhe deinaad of Rs.20,000/-. --^,Ssa___ s, '^ ^''^^•^' ? ^? l:> •• ;' — <i'.. ''"i; l-.-Sdl 9. Apart frota these fbree witnesses, no other witaess has been prodliced. Moolchaiid Tiwari (PW-4), Triyogi Narayaa (PW- 5) are fhe form.al witnesses. Sudauia (PW-2) has not stated about bumiag of sari s aanchal of his daughter. Thiis, it is clear troin the stateiaent of coinplainant and her sister Poonam iha.t Uie respondent Sudesh has tned to bum' the sari aanchaf of ftie coiuplainaat but, fhis has not been corroborated by her fafher, therefore the stateinent of fh.is witaess becoiaes doubtful. They have not lodged the report uiiiaediately, but they have lodged fb.e report after 1 l/z uionths of the incident. The iacident was not aan-ated to aay body aad no reasons were given by fheiu regarduig lodgiag fhe F.I.R. belatedly. It also creates doubt. 10. Letters D/2, D/3 aad D/4 have been v/ritten. Letter D/3 has been written by Sudama. In letter D/4 it is written ttiat everythiiig is well. In fhis regard, it is clear fhat fhe coinplauiaat wrote letters D/4 aad D/5, ia which, she has not inentioned aii\'where about torturmg her. Under these circumstances, lookiiig to fhose letters, fhe stateiaent of tiae coiaplaiiiant becoiaes doubtfiil. The learaed lower court after consideriug on this poiat, found discrepancy iu fhe statenients of fhe ^vitaesses aud also Ex. D/2, D/3 aad D/4, ia. which, nowhere it has been inentioned about tortllriiig or harassiug fhe complainaiit bj' the accused/respondents. Therefore, aller perusal of tlie statem.en.ts of th.e witaesses and after fiiidiag discrepaiicies, fhe learaed lower coui-t. bas acquitted tiie respondents of fhe charge under Sections 498, 498-A/34 of the IPC. Thus, ttte jiidgmeut of tbe leanied lower court is not iiiiproper aa.d ittegal, fherefoi^, lower Coiu-t has not erred ia acquittiug the respondents. 11, Iu ffcie facts and circuiastauces oftlie case, I am ofthe view fhat the prosecutioa lias not been able to prove the g'uilty of the respondents under Sections 498 and 498-A/34 offhe IPC. Thus, fhe acquittal of fhe respondeuts is weU m.erited and does not call for aiiy interference. 12. In fhe result, the appeal berag devoid ofsubstaace is liable to be disiaissed aud is herebv disniissed. •L. Jliaawar