Ganesh Soni and Others vs State of C.G.

T.P. Sharma, J.—This revision is directed against the judgment dated 13.10.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh Camp Kawardha in Criminal Appeal No. 75/1998 affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.7.1998 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kawardha in Case No. 612/1997 whereby the accused/applicants were convicted u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each and pay fine of Rs. 300.00 in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

During the pendency of the case, accused/applicant No. 2 Mehtar died and therefore the revision by him abates.

The judgment is challenged on the ground that without there being any clinching and credible evidence the Courts below have committed an illegality by convicting and sentencing the accused/applicants as mentioned above.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that complainant Pushpa Bai, wife of applicant No. 1 and daughter in law of applicants No. 2 and 3, left her matrimonial home at her own three years prior to lodging of First Information Report and even when the applicants tried to resolve the dispute and went to bring her back, she refused to come with them. When the applicants filed an application u/s 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure asking her to live with him, she filed the First Information Report against them.

On the other hand the impugned judgment is supported on behalf of the Respondent/State.

This is a criminal revision against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court in appeal. The concurrent findings of the two Courts below convicting and sentencing the applicant as mentioned above should not be disturbed unless there is some substantial ground warranting interference.

In order to appreciate the condition of the parties, I have examined the material available on record.

Complainant Pushpa Bai (PW-1) lodged the report on 12.8.1995 against the applicants specifically mentioning that the applicants were demanding dowry and used to torture her. The uncle of her husband who was practicing in medicine was asked by her father in law (deceased applicant No. 2) to give her such an injection that she should die and since she had overheard the conversation between them, she refused from being injected by him. After her refusal to be injected by the uncle of the applicant No. 1, the applicants ousted her. Thereafter, applicant No. 1 remarried one Anita on 2.7.1995. Complainant Pushpa Bai has admitted in her evidence that applicant No. 1 served her anotice to live with him. She has not stated that when she was ousted Keshavrarr. (PW-4) father of the complainant has admitted that he did not lodge any report with respect to ouster of Pushpa Bai 4 years prior to making of statement i.e. 5.5.1957. This shows that at least two years before lodging of report; she was residing in her parental house and before her ouster her father in law/applicant No. 2 (since deceased) asked his brother to give her deadly injection so that she could die. This allegation is a serious one. Even after this allegation of administering her deadly injection and her subsequent ouster, she did not take any action against the applicants and she lodged the report only after she received the notice from the applicant No. 1 asking her to live with him. Her silence for more than two years especially when she was beaten and ousted by the applicants, and her father-in-law entering into a conspiracy with his brother to give her a deadly injunction to kill her, shows her as well as her parent''s conduct to be unnatural. In the absence of any independent corporation of her statement, it would not be safe to place reliance thereon.

Corroboration of the statement of the complainant and he relatives from independent source was necessary but the prosecution has failedo adduce any such evidence and in the absence of such corroborative evidence, it would not be safe to place reliance upon the same.

In the light of aforesaid analysis, I am of the opinion that the Courts below fell in legal error in placing reliance upon the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant and her parents and convicting and sentencing the accused/applicants as mentioned above.

Thus, the revision is allowed. judgment impugned is set aside. They are acquitted of the charge leveled against them. They be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.