VIJAY BISHNOI,J. - (1.) This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved with the judgment dated 22.07.2015 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kherwara, District Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Regular Criminal Case No.35/2015, whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused respondent Nos.2 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 I.P.C.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the charges against the accused respondent Nos.2 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 I.P.C. are sufficiently proved before the trial court by the prosecution, however, the trial court has erred in acquitting the accused respondent Nos.2 to 4 vide impugned judgment. It is contended that the appellant PW-1 Renuka in her statement has specifically stated that the accused respondent Nos.2 to 4 used to harass her for less dowry and they have thrown her out from their house when the dowry was not given to them. It is also contended that PW-2 Kanku and PW-3 Bhagwana, mother and father of the appellant respectively, have also supported the version of the appellant, however, the trial court has not relied their testimony only on the basis of minor contradiction. It is further contended that the Investigating Officer has verified the investigation conducted by him, whereas he has recovered stridhan of the appellant and from the above piece of evidence, it is clear that the charges against the accused respondent Nos.2 to 4 for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 406 and 323 I.P.C. is proved. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and the accused respondent Nos.2 to 4 be convicted and suitably punished for the offences, for which they have been charged by the trial court.
(3.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 have argued that from bare reading of the evidence of PW-1 Renuka, PW-2 Kanku, PW-3 Bhagwana, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused respondent Nos.2 to 4, for which they have been charged by the trial court, therefore, the trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the accused respondent Nos.2 to 4 vide impugned judgment.;