HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
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.
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.
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
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)
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)
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)
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
Hence, this leave to appeal application is dismissed as being
devoid of merit.
Record be returned to the trial court.