- (1.) HEARD Mr.Surendra Surana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.R.Nikub, learned P.P.
(2.) THE present revision petition has been filed by the complainant petitioner (wife) being aggrieved by the acquittal of the contesting respondents vide impugned judgment and order dated 17.11.2000 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 26/98. Those respondents were charged U/ss.498 A, 406 & 323 IPC. The complainant petitioner lodged a complaint against the respondents No.1 to 6 alleging cruelty against them for demand of dowry and consequential ill treatment. Following the investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against them U/ss.498 A, 406 & 323 IPC and the trial commenced. By the impugned judgment and order, they have been acquitted primarily on the ground that the testimony of the complainant petitioner on oath was in departure on material particulars from those recited in her complaint and that she had failed to produce any independent witness in support of her charge. Mr.Surendra Surana, learned counsel for the petitioner has emphatically argued that having regard to the nature of the allegations made by her pertaining to her daily life, the insistence of the learned trial Court for independent witness was illogical and irrational. Further, as the accusation was based on domestic violence, it was not feasible on the part of the complainant petitioner to provide every minute details thereof. Contending that the types of allegations made, in the Indian Society, would not be levelled by a wife, unless true, the learned counsel has insisted that in the interest of justice, interference with the impugned judgment and order is warranted.
(3.) I have perused in details the text of the decision impugned as well as other materials on record. Qua the first ground of rejection of the case of the complainant petitioner, i.e. she had strayed from her averments in the complaint, the learned trial Court did refer to the aspect of second marriage of her husband respondent No.1 with one Monika. The learned trial Court was of the view that her testimony in the Court failed to identify that lady. With regard to her allegation of dowry demand of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/ from her parents, it was noted by the learned Court below that her version with regard thereto referred to different points of time of the same demand which rendered the said accusation untrustworthy. According to the learned trial Court, she further contradicted herself in this regard. Though she alleged as well that her husband used to stay most of the time at Jaipur and not at Ajmer and that even during his visits to Ajmer, he used to assault her in an intoxicated condition, the learned trial Court rejected this charge on the ground of omission on her part to provide the details thereof. Her allegation that persons of dubious conduct used to visit her husband was also rejected in absence of proper identification. The omission on the part of PW2 Mahesh Kumar, the brother of the complainant, to refer to the alleged second marriage of respondent no.1 with Monika, was taken note of as well. That the evidence of the other witnesses including her parents, brother and sister in law did not support her on material particulars vis a vis the charges levelled against the respondents, was underlined as well. The learned trial Court also took note of the evidence of the three defence witnesses examined by the respondents to the effect that there had never been any dispute or differences between the complainant petitioner and the respondent No.1 justifying the charge. On a cumulative consideration of all these conclusions, the learned trial Court thus, acquitted the respondents No.1 to 6.;