Mrs. Nibedita Baruah vs Dr. Surendra Nath Tamuli

None appeared for the petitioner. Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 31-08-2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kamrup, Guwahati

in G.R. Case No. 4859/2003.

The criminal law was Set into motion through an FIR lodged by PW 1, Mr. Nivedita Baruah(victim) alleging therein, that since their marriage in the

month of November, 1989, she was subjected to physical and mental torture by her petitioner/husband. Initially she was tortured for demand of dowry

and later on she was subjected to torture for business partnership. On the basis of the said FIR, police registered a case and after usual investigation,

having found the allegation against the petitioner not proved, submitted final report. However, learned Judicial Magistrate did not accept the final

report and took cognizance against the petitioner. Eventually, the petitioner stood trial for offence u/s 498-A IPC.

In course of trial, charge u/s 498- A IPC was framed against the petitioner, to which he pleadednot guilty. One witness, being the informant herself,

was examined in the instant case and on appreciation of evidence, learned Judicial Magistrate, having found the charge against the petitioner not

proved, acquitted him.

Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the informant preferred the instant revision petition.

The informant, in her evidence stated, that since after 5 days of her marriage in the year 1989,she was subjected to physical and mental torture by

her husband and consequently, she lodged the FIR. During cross-examination, it was revealed that she was doing her own business and her husband

helped her and even stood as a guarantor for obtaining loan for her business. It appears from the record that no other witness was examined, except

the PW 1, the informant. The statement of the father of the victim was recorded u/s 164 CrPC, which was proved as Ex. A, through the PW 1

herself, and such statement of the father of the PW 1, raised a big question mark, about the veracity of the prosecution case sought to be projected by

the PW 1.

Apparently, besides, making some omnibus statement of physical and mental torture, nothingwas stated by the PW 1, before the court to attract the

provision of Section 498-A IPC. The Ex. A, the statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC, though, not an evidence, while PW 1 was confronted with the

statement of her father, during cross, she admitted that the statement was given by her father. The admission of PW 1, that she was doing her own

business and the petitioner stood guarantor to enable her to obtain loan, rendered her testimony, that the petitioner tortured her for money totally

unworthy of trust. On the basis of the above evidence, learned Judicial Magistrate recorded acquittal of the petitioner as no other evidence was

brought on record to substantiate the charge u/s 498-A IPC.

It is the settled position, that the power of the revisional court against any order of acquittal isextremely narrow. Unless the judgment suffers from

any glaring mistake causing miscarriage of justice or the judgment is found to be perverse or against the evidence brought on record, the revisional

court is not supposed to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. Even if two views are possible, on appreciation of evidence, the revisional court

cannot re-appreciate the evidence to replace the view of the trial court by its own view. The Apex Court in Venkatesan â€"VS- Rani reported in

(2013) 14 SCC 207 dealing with the scope of interference with an order of acquittal by the revisional court observed as under :-

“The above consideration would go to show that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Courts while examining an order of acquittal is extremely

narrow and ought to be exercised only in cases where the Trial Court had committed a manifest error of law or procedure or had overlooked and

ignored relevant and material evidence thereby causing miscarriage of justice. Re-appreciation of evidence is an exercise that the High Court must

refrain from while examining an order of acquittal in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the Code. Needless to say, if within the limited

parameters, interference of the High Court is justified the only course of action that can be adopted is to order a re-trial after setting aside the

acquittal. As the language of Section 401 of the Code makes it amply clear there is no power vested in the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal

into one of conviction.â€​

Be that as it may, the sole testimony of the PW 1 in the instant case makes it abundantly clear,that no ingredient of the offence u/s 498- A IPC

could be made out, and as such, the finding of the learned trial court acquitting the petitioner cannot be faulted, inasmuch as, the order of acquittal

further strengthened the presumption of innocence of the accused.

Being of the above view, I find the revision petition to be devoid of merit and accordinglydismissed.

Send back the LCR.

                                              Â