Pooja vs State & Ors on 3 November, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 33 / 2016
Pooja D/o Sh. Radha Krishan W/o Sh Hukamchand, Aged About 31
Years, By Caste Dhanak, R/o Indra Chowk, Bapu Nagar, Ward No.
47, Sriganganagar.
—-Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor.

2. Hukamchand S/o Sh. Manglaram Alias Mangiram, Aged About
32 Years, By Caste Dhanak

3. Smt. Angoori Devi W/o Sh. Manglaram Alias Mangiram, Aged
About 52 Years, By Caste Dhanak, 2 3 Both R/o Ward No. 7,
Street No. 8/3 Near Gaushala Road, Ramamandi Police Station,
Ramamandi Tehsil, Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda, Punjab.
—-Respondents
__
For Appellant(s) : Mr.Aakash Kukkar.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.L.R.Upadhyay, P.P., Mr.Arjun Purohit.
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment / Order
03/11/2017

By way of the instant application, the applicant Smt.Pooja

craves leave to file an appeal against the judgment dated

3.11.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Srigangangar in Case No.631/2009 (2238/2014) whereby the

respondents were acquitted from the charges for offences under

Sections 406, 498A and 323 I.P.C.

The applicant was married to the respondent Hukamchand in

the year 2000. Three children were born from the wedlock. It is

alleged that the applicant herein was turned out of the

matrimonial home in May 2008 and later on, the respondent
(2 of 4)
[CRLLA-33/2016]

Hukamchand forcibly took away the three children from lawful

custody of the applicant herein. The applicant lodged a written

report against the respondents and few others at the P.S. Mahila

Thana, Sriganganagar on 11.9.2009 alleging inter-alia that her

husband and other matrimonial relatives harassed and humiliated

her on account of demand of dowry right from the date of her

marriage. In the month of January 2008, without any cause, she

was turned out of the matrimonial home. In the month of May

2008, the accused came to her father’s house, assaulted her and

forcibly took away their three children from her lawful custody and

took them to Rama Mandi. The applicant accompanied by her

parents and other relatives went to Rama Mandi for fetching the

children back and for demanding return of her Stridhan on

numerous occasion but the accused did not pay any heed to these

requests. Though the F.I.R. was filed against 7 persons, the

Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet only against Hukamchand

the husband and Angoori Devi the mother in law of the applicant

complainant. The applicant upon being examined as P.W.1 during

trial alleged that the accused persons harassed and humiliated her

on account of demand of a TV and a fridge. She also alleged that

Hukamchand often used to beat her up under influence of liquor.

He used to demand sums of Rs.2000, 5000 and 10,000 from her.

She was taunted that gold rings were not given to the father and

the sister of Hukamchand in the marriage. She also alleged that

Hukamchand had married another girl named Saroj. In cross-

examination, the applicant admitted that she never saw the

second wife of Hukamchand. On 9.7.2007 she herself went away
(3 of 4)
[CRLLA-33/2016]

from her father’s house without informing anyone and a missing

persons report was registered in relation thereto. The trial court

took note of the material contradictions appearing in the evidence

of the applicant complainant vis-a-vis the F.I.R. and the other

documents on record and came to the conclusion that the charges

were not proved beyond all manner of doubt against the accused

so as to justify their conviction. Consequently, the accused

persons were acquitted of the charges by the impugned judgment

dated 3.11.2015 which is challenged in the instant appeal.

Having heard and appreciated the arguments advanced by

Shri Aakash Kukkad learned counsel representing the applicant

complainant and after going through the impugned judgment and

the material available on record, I am in firm agreement with the

findings recorded and conclusions drawn by the trial court in the

impugned judgment of acquittal. Admittedly, the complainant was

turned out from the matrimonial home in the month of January

2008 and her children’s custody were allegedly forcibly taken

away by the accused in May 2008. The F.I.R. came to be lodged as

late as in April 2009. No justification was forthcoming regarding

the significant and undue delay in lodging of the F.I.R. There was

no clear allegation in the F.I.R. regarding the particular article of

dowry allegedly demanded by the accused from the complainant.

Absolutely vague and omnibus allegations of demand of dowry

and harassment allegedly meted out to the applicant for that

purpose were set out in the F.I.R. against as many as six accused

persons. During trial, the complainant limited her allegations only

against her husband and the mother in law. Thus, apparently,
(4 of 4)
[CRLLA-33/2016]

evidence of the complainant and the other prosecution witnesses

regarding the dowry articles allegedly demanded by the accused

and the allegations of harassment meted out to the complainant

were vacillating and uncertain. Consequently, the trial court was

perfectly justified disbelieving the prosecution evidence in

acquitting the respondents from the charges.

Finding no infirmity, illegality or shortcoming in the

impugned judgment of acquittal dated 3.11.2015, I am not

inclined to grant leave to the applicant for filing an appeal

thereagainst.

Hence, this leave to appeal application is dismissed as being

devoid of merit.

Record be returned to the trial court.

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J.

/tarun goyal/

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *