1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR

BENCH, JAIPUR

Smt. Suman Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

(S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.942/2009)

Date of Order :-

21^th October, 2009

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN

Mr.J.P. Gupta, for the petitioner.

Mr.Javed Chaudhary, Public Prosecutor.

Mr.Vinay Pal Yadav, for the accused-respondents.

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.05.2009

passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate

(First Class) South, Ajmer wherein the learned Judge has acquitted the

accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 for offences under Sections 498A & 406

IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The brief facts of the case are that on 23.03.2004, the

petitioner-complainant, Smt. Suman submitted a report before the

S.H.O. Women Police Station, Alwar Gate, Ajmer stating therein that on

15.05.1989, her marriage was solemnized with the respondent No.2,

Suraj Bhan and in 1998 her Gona (Muklawa) took place. In the

marriage her parents gave many dowry articles according to their

capacity. But neither her husband, nor her in-laws were happy with the

quantum of dowry given by her parents. Therefore, they started to

torture her. It was further stated that they pressurized her to have their

tractor repaired by her father, otherwise they would throw her out of

the matrimonial home. The petitioner's brother got the respondent's

tractor repaired from the Pratap Auto Mobile. He incurred Rs.35,000/-

in getting the tractor repaired. Inspite of this, her in-laws continued

2

with the cruelty. They told her to either bring the money from her

father, or to bring a truck from him. It was further stated that on

18.07.2000, she gave birth to a daughter. All the expenses incurred in

the delivery were borne by her parents. Thereafter, the husband again

and again tortured her and demanded a truck. When she told him that

her parents are incapable of buying a truck, she was beaten by her

husband, and the in-laws. Eventually, she was thrown out from the

matrimonial home. It was further stated that her 'Stridhan' is in the

possession of the accused-respondents. When she demanded the same,

they have refused to return it.

On the said report, on 24.03.2004 a FIR, FIR No.31/2004

was registered at Police Station Women, Ajmer for offences under

Section 498A and 406 IPC. The said FIR was registered against seven

persons. But, after a thorough investigation, the police filed a charge-

sheet only against the respondent Nos.2 to 4 for offences under

Sections 498A & 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Thereafter, the learned trial court framed the charges against the

accused-respondents for the above mentioned offences. In support of

its case, prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses and also

exhibited twelve documents. The accused-respondents did not produce

any evidence. After hearing both the parties, vide judgment dated

14.05.2009, the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondents

for offences under Sections 498A & 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act. Hence, this petition before this Court.

Mr. J.P. Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has

vehemently argued that the prosecution has faulted in declaring the

3

petitioner as a hostile witness. Secondly, there is sufficient evidence in

the form of the petitioner's testimony to prove a case for offences under

Sections 498A & 406 IPC. Therefore, the learned Judge has erred in

acquitting the accused-respondents for the said offences.

On the other hand, Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav, the learned

counsel for the accused-respondents, has contended that the

complainant's testimony was demolished in her cross-examination. In

her cross-examination, she clearly admitted that there was no dispute

between the parties prior to the birth of her daughter. There was some

dispute that arose