The judgment emphasizes the requirement for cogent and trustworthy evidence to prove criminal charges beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting the importance of consistency and reliability in witness testimony.

JUDGMENT :

(Syed Waiz Mian, J.) :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This government appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 30.5.2019, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, (Crimes against Women), Aligarh in Sessions Trial No. 246/2016, arising out of Case Crime No. 296/2014, P.S.-Madrak, district-Aligarh, whereby, he has acquitted the accused-respondents of the charges under Sections-498A, 506, 323, 376 and 406 I. P. C. and Sections-3/4 of D. P. Act.

3. The prosecution story in brief runs as under :

It is admitted fact that the informant was wedded on 30.4.2011 with Manoj and in that marriage her parents had spent around six lacs rupees in dowry expenses etc.; her husband Manoj, on 30.5.2013 died leaving behind their daughter, aged about one year and four months.

4. P.W. 1 in her ocular evidence has stated that on presentation of her application dated 1.11.2014 under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. in which the alleged incident was stated to have occurred in the month of June, 2014 present case being Case Crime No. 296 of 2014, under Sections-498A, 506 I.P.C. and Sections-3/4 of D. P. Act, was registered at concerned police station and during her deposition she identified her application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. and also admitted her signature thereon, as such, this application was marked as Ext. Ka 1.

5. P.W. 1 in her examination-in-chief has deposed that her parents had spent about six lacks rupees in her marriage; some dowry was also given to her husband and in-laws but after marriage, they were not happy with the dowry; She with her daughter continued to live in her in-laws house; After death of her husband, Satpal, who happens to be her brother-in-law (dewar) had proposed her to marry with him and also said that he wants to lead his life with her but in-laws would taunt her that she wants to live as wife of Satpal (dewar) and both in-laws would send their son Satpal into her room and he forcibly made physical relations with her and continued her sexual harassment including rape upon her for many years till she lived there; she asked Satpal to fulfil his promise to marry her as he committed rape upon her continuously but on one or other pretext, he did not marry her; in the month of June, 2014 in the presence of her in-laws, Satpal (dewar), Yashoda sister-in-laws Neelam, Nihala and Divya, she demanded Satpal to marry her because by making false promise to marry her, he had raped her for months together, to which Nanad Divya intervened and said that marriage with Satpal is possible if she from her parents brings six-seven lacs rupees. She was also beaten and asked her to turn out from the house but she refused to leave her matrimonial house due to discord; She was forced to sit in the car and was left in the lurch out of the village. In this backdrop, she lodged F. I. R. against accused.

6. P.W. 1 informant in her entire deposition has not uttered a single word of any demand of dowry from her or any member of her family. P. W. 1 informant in her cross examination has stated that her daughter was born after one year of the marriage; she with her husband was living happily and she stayed in her matrimonial house; after three months of the death of her husband, her father and other members of family were called by the in-laws to their house and she had left her matrimonial home happily. Next she deposed that after lapse of 5-6 months, she was happily sent to her parental house and after passage of ten days in her parental house, her dewar Satpal came to take her to in-laws house; since she was ill therefore, her father took her to her matrimonial house thereafter.

7. P.W. 1 informant in her cross examination has admitted that after the death of her husband she stayed back for about 5-6 months in her matrimonial home and she was happy with the behaviour of her in-laws and other members of her family. She has not stated in her cross examination that demand of dowry was ma