[2025:RJ-JD:31842]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 683/2008 Kamlesh W/o Bhagwat Rai B/c Agarwal, R/o Ward No.13, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar ----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, 2. Laxmandas S/o Shyam Lal

3. Sunita Rani W/o Vijay Kumar

4.Vijay Kumar S/o Laxmandas respondents No.2 to 5 R/o Sameja Kothi Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar

5. Bhagwant Rai S/o Laxmandas B/c Agarwal Sameja Kothi at present77, N.P., Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.L. Joshi Ms. Kirti Joshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA Mr. Jayant Jain Ms. Urvarshi Kalla HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

14/07/2025

1. The present Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred by the petitioner–complainant under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., assailing the judgment dated 11.04.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Appeal No. 23/2006. Vide the impugned judgment, the appellate court allowed the appeal preferred by the accused-respondents and set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against them by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Raisinghnagar in Criminal Case No. 411/2002, dated 15.04.2006, whereby the accused- respondents were convicted for offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo two years’ simple imprisonment along with a fine of ₹500/-, and in default, to further undergo three months’ simple imprisonment.

2. The factual matrix giving rise to the present proceedings, in brief, is that the petitioner–complainant Kamlesh lodged a report on 07.04.2002 before the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Raisinghnagar, alleging that her marriage with accused Bhagwant Rai was solemnized approximately 17 years ago. She alleged that sufficient dowry articles were given at the time of marriage by her parents. However, subsequent to the marriage, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty, coupled with repeated unlawful demands of dowry, including a specific demand of ₹20,000. Based on the complaint, FIR No. 223/2002 was registered at Police Station Raisinghnagar for offences punishable under Sections 498-

A and 406 IPC.

2.1. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the respondents under Section 498-A IPC. The accused persons denied the allegations and claimed trial. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined four witnesses. Following the closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the incriminating allegations and pleaded innocence.

2.2. Vide judgment dated 15.04.2006, the learned Trial Court held the accused guilty under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced them as aforementioned. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents preferred Criminal Appeal No. 23/2006, which came to be allowed by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 11.04.2008, resulting in their acquittal. Hence, the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court suffers from manifest legal infirmity and is vitiated by misappreciation of evidence. It is contended that the learned Trial Court had rendered its findings based on cogent, consistent, and credible testimony of the complainant Kamlesh (P.W.1), her father Omprakash (P.W.2), and Pawan Kumar (P.W.3), a self-proclaimed Panchayat member. It is submitted that the prosecution had duly established the essential ingredients of cruelty as envisaged under Section 498-A IPC and the Trial Court had rightly relied upon such evidence. Counsel further argued that the Appellate Court erred in discarding the prosecution case merely on the basis of minor discrepancies, which are natural and inevitable given the lapse of time, and such inconsistencies ought not to have oversha