HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 12/2011

Shri Narayan son of Shri Kajod Mal, aged 35 years, by caste
Meena, resident of Kalota, Police Station Kolwa, District Dausa
(Rajasthan)
(At present in District Jail, Sikar)
—-Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Rajasthan, through P.P.
2. Smt. Manju Devi wife of Shrinarayan D/o Gulzari Lal, by caste
Meena, resident of Ward No.22, Near Court, Shrimadhopur (Raj.)

—-Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Amit Singh Shekhawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr.V.S.Godara, PP
Mr.Rinesh Gupta, for complainant

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI

Judgment / Order

11/05/2018

Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, the Public

Prosecutor, appearing for State as also learned counsel for the

complainant.

This revision petition has been preferred on behalf of the

accused petitioner to assail the judgment dated 14.12.2010

passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Sikar

H.Q. Srimadhopur whereby he upheld the judgment dated

14.7.2010 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate No.1,

Srimadhopur (Sikar), by which the learned trial court has

convicted the accused petitioner for the offence under Sec. 498A

and 406 IPC and sentenced him for the period of two years’ SI
(2 of 5) [CRLR-12/2011]

with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Sec.498A IPC, and

imposed the sentence of six months’ SI for the offence under

Sec.406 IPC. Default sentence for ten days was also awarded.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the courts

below have not properly appreciated the evidence adduced by the

prosecution witnesses. The inconsistency and contradiction

amongst the prosecution witnesses have been ignored. There is

misreading and non-reading of the material evidence and the

judgments have been passed on mere conjectures and surmises.

It has further been contended that the respondent-wife Manju

Devi had left the matrimonial home in the year 1995, just after

almost a year of the marriage but the FIR was lodged on 1.8.2000

which has been filed with inordinate delay. This fact has also not

been considered by the courts below. Learned counsel has further

contended that the wife was suffering from mental illness. There is

evidence on record to show that she was treated by psychiatrics

Dr. Shiv Gautam and Dr. Vyas. In order to deviate the matter from

the actual controversy, allegations of causing cruelty were made

against the petitioner which are baseless. It has also been

contended that since there was no electricity available in the

village, allegation of demand for dowry articles like T.V. and fridge

are baseless. Learned counsel submits that both the courts below

have failed to consider these material aspects while pronouncing

the judgments impugned and, therefore, same are liable to be

quashed and set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant-

respondent has taken the objection at the outset that since the
(3 of 5) [CRLR-12/2011]

concurrent findings have been recorded by both the courts below

in regard to the offences under Sec.498A and 406 IPC, this court

while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, cannot reappreciate the

evidence. To support his contention, he has placed reliance on AIR

1975 SC 1960-Duli Chand Vs. Delhi Administration. He

further contends that even on factual aspect, the plea taken by

rival sides is not justified. During the examination of the accused

under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., he has not stated that the complainant

wife was suffering from any mental disorder. No defence witnesses

in regard to such disorder have been examined. Counsel further

states that the complainant PW-1 has specifically stated in her

examination in chief that at the time of her marriage, she was

studying in Class XII. It has also come during cross-examination

of PW-6 Samarthi Lal Meena that Manju was undergoing training

of B.Ed and prior to that she was serving in private school. It

clearly indicates that she was not suffering from any mental

disorder. Learned counsel for the respondent also contends that no

legal issue has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner to

show that how the judgments impugned suffer from any illegality

or infirmity for which the revision petition is liable to be allowed.

Therefore, he prays that the revision petition deserves to be

dismissed.

I have gone through the evidence available on record and

the judgments impugned. At the outset, it may be observed that

both the courts below have given concurrent finding of fact as

regards the charge framed for the offence under Sec. 498A and

406 IPC. In view of the judgments relied upon by the learned

counsel for the respondent in Duli Chand’s Case (supra), it is
(4 of 5) [CRLR-12/2011]

established legal proposition that when there is concurrent finding

of fact, the evidence cannot be re-appreciated in the revision

preferred. The jurisdiction of this court in criminal revision is

severely restricted and it cannot embark upon re-appreciation of

evidence. On going through the judgments impugned, this court

finds that same cannot be found to have suffered from any

illegality or infirmity on account of mis-reading and non-reading of

material witnesses. Immetarial contradictions in the statements of

prosecution witnesses on the point as to after how much period

complainant came back to her maternal home, cannot be

presumed as material evidence. Such inconsistency in the

evidence can safely be ignored and the judgments passed by the

courts below cannot be said to have suffered from infirmity on this

count.

Main plea which has been taken by the learned counsel for

the petitioner is that the complainant was suffering from mental

disorder. She got married with petitioner while suppressing this

fact. But in my considered view, the courts below have rightly

rejected this plea. PW-1 Manju has stated that at the time of her

marriage, she was studying in Class XII. This fact clearly negates

the plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The

prosecution witnesses have stated that because of harassment

and ill-treatment to the complainant, she got mentally disturbed.

It has also been admitted by the prosecution witnesses including

the complainant that she was treated by psychiatrics Dr.Vyas and

Dr.Shiv Gautam but the complainant has denied that she was

completely insane. In these circumstances, it cannot be inferred

that the complainant was suffering from mental disorder and this

fact was suppressed at the time of her marriage. It is further to be
(5 of 5) [CRLR-12/2011]

observed that no such stand has been taken by the accused

petitioner during his examination under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. Moreso,

no witness has been examined in defence, and no documentary

evidence has been produced to show that the complainant was

suffering from mental illness prior to marriage. This is sufficient to

infer that the plea now being raised by the counsel for the

petitioner is baseless and mere an after thought.

The charge against the accused petitioner was for the

offence under Sec. 498A and 406 IPC. For the allegation of

aforesaid offences, this cannot be a plausible defence that the wife

was suffering from mental illness. Even for the sake of arguments,

it is presumed that she was suffering from mental illness, it cannot

justify the conduct of the husband to treat her with cruelty and to

harass her to meet the demand for dowry.

In substance, the ground raised by learned counsel for the

petitioner do not at all justify to make any inference in the

judgments impugned by this court while exercising the revisional

jurisdiction.

In the result, this court finds no substance in the revision

petition and the same is dismissed accordingly.

(DEEPAK MAHESHWARI),J

sandeep/-49