SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Anupama Kashyap vs State And Anr on 22 November, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 245/2018

Anupama Kashyap D/o O.p. Kashyap W/o Alok Kumar Kashyap,
By Caste Kashyap Rajput, Resident Of 16/262, Chopasani
Housing Board, Police Station Chb, Jodhpur.

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan

2. Alok Kumar Kashyap S/o Ashok Kumar Kashyap, By Caste
Kashyap Rajput, Resident Of 18/1, Laxman Prasad Road,
Near Golaganj Christian College, Lacknow U.p.

—-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anita Gehlot, P.P.

Mr. Manish Chittora

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

Order

22/11/2019

The complainant petitioner Anupama Kashyap has

approached this court by way of this revision petition for assailing

the judgment dated 04.12.2017 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge (Woman Atrocities Cases), Jodhpur Metropolitan in

Criminal Appeal No.100/2015, whereby the appeal preferred by

the petitioner under Section 372 CrPC against the judgment dated

17.06.2015 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate (PCPNDT Act Cases), Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal

Original Case No.10/2014, whereby the respondent-accused Alok

Kumar Kashyap was acquitted of the charges under Sections 498-

A, 406 and 323 SectionIPC.

(Downloaded on 28/11/2019 at 08:27:55 PM)

(2 of 5) [CRLR-245/2018]

I have heard and considered the submissions advanced

at bar and have gone through the impugned judgments as well as

the original record. The learned trial court appreciated in entirety,

the facts and circumstances available on record and came to a

conclusion that the allegations set out by the complainant in the

FIR and her sworn testimony were not corroborated by any

independent evidence. Many of the allegations set out by the

complainant in the FIR and her sworn testimony were found to be

at variance with her police statement. Likewise, contradictions

were noticed by the trial court in the statements of Om Prakash

(P.W.2), Shobha (P.W.3), the father and the mother respectively of

the petitioner complainant. The Investigating Officer Smt. Mukta

Pareek (P.W.5) admitted in her cross-examination that Alok used

to work at Delhi and the complainant resided with him at Delhi.

She made no investigation from any person, who resided in their

neighbourhood at Delhi. Likewise, the complainant’s matrimonial

home was at Lucknow and the Investigating Officer did not

conduct any investigation from any independent person residing

near the house of her in-laws. Learned trial court observed that

the complainant party came out with a specific case that Alok and

his relatives used to come to Jodhpur, where Om Prakash would

give them money to satisfy their demands. Moreover, no

independent person from the neighbourhood of Omprakash was

examined to corroborate this allegation. The complainant came

out with a case in her complaint the community counselling was

attempted to resolve the dispute, but no such community member

was examined to prove this assertion. The complainant admitted

in her cross-examination that no dowry was given at the time of

marriage. She submitted a list of dowry articles alongwith the

(Downloaded on 28/11/2019 at 08:27:55 PM)
(3 of 5) [CRLR-245/2018]

complaint, in which, there was no reference of any ornaments.

The trial court also observed that no sooner, the FIR came to be

lodged, the accused returned all the household articles to the

Investigating Officer and thus, the offence under Section 406 IPC

was not made out. The complainant also alleged that she was

beaten up and suffered numerous injuries at the hands of the

accused frequently, but no injury report was proved to support

this allegation. The complainant also alleged that over a period of

one and half years between 13.07.2012 and 03.04.2013, a sum of

Rs.6.50 lacs was given to Alok and his family members to satisfy

their demand of dowry, but the evidence of the material witnesses

was found contradictory and unconvincing on this aspect. It was

admitted by the complainant and her parents that no dowry was

given at the time of marriage. In this backdrop, the allegation of

the complainant that she was beaten up soon after she reached

the matrimonial home on the issue of quality and quantity of

dowry articles was held to be totally unacceptable. After making

this entire discussion, the trial court proceeded to acquit the

accused respondents of the charges.

The complainant preferred an appeal under Section 372

CrPC before the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan to challenge

the judgment of acquittal dated 17.06.2015. The appeal so

preferred was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge

(Woman Atrocities Cases), Jodhpur Metropolitan. After hearing

the arguments advanced by the parties and re-appreciating the

evidence available on record, the learned trial court dismissed the

appeal by the judgment dated 04.12.2017. Both these

judgments, i.e. the judgment of acquittal and that of dismissal of

appeal are assailed in this revision.

(Downloaded on 28/11/2019 at 08:27:55 PM)

(4 of 5) [CRLR-245/2018]

I have heard and considered the submissions advanced

by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary, learned counsel representing the

petitioner, Mr. Manish Chittora, learned counsel representing the

respondent-accused as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. After

having appreciating the facts available on record, I am duly

satisfied that the finding recorded in the judgments of the courts

below that the complainant could not bring home the case against

the respondent accused by leading evidence proving the

commission of the alleged offences beyond all manner of doubt.

The two courts of competent jurisdiction have recorded concurrent

findings of facts in this regard and I am of the firm opinion that

these findings do not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. That

apart, the scope of High Court’s powers while entertaining a

revision is defined by Section 401 CrPC, the Clause (3) whereof

reads as below :

Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a
High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of
conviction.

Manifestly, thus, the law prohibits the High Court from

converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The only

possible order in these circumstances would be to direct re-trial of

the accused, which can only be ordered, if at all there has been a

failure of justice. Manifestly, no such circumstances exist on the

record, which could justify re-trail of the accused for the charges

because neither the impugned judgment suffers from misreading

of evidence nor from ignorance of material facts. Thus, I find no

merit in this revision preferred by the petitioner complainant for

(Downloaded on 28/11/2019 at 08:27:55 PM)
(5 of 5) [CRLR-245/2018]

assailing the acquittal of the respondent by the trial court and

dismissal of the appeal against acquittal.

Resultantly, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed

as such.

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

184-Pramod/-

(Downloaded on 28/11/2019 at 08:27:55 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation