KAPIL VASTRAKAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Marriage between the applicant herein with Manjula (PW-1) was solemnized on 15.02.2001 and after living for some days in her matrimonial home, they went to Ambikapur where the husband was working. However, just within the four months after marriage, the relations between the two turned sour, allegedly, on account of the demand of Hero Honda Splendor Motorcycle raised by the husband and his family members such as the mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law of the complainant Manjula. Not only this, the accused/applicant herein is also alleged to have subjected the complainant to frequent beatings on account of the non fulfillment of his demand for Hero Honda Splendor Motorcycle. When the cruel behavior of the applicant and his relatives became unbearable, the complainant made a written report (Ex. P-1) followed by registration of FIR under Section 498-A IPC against them.

(2.) It is relevant to note that the FIR was registered against as many as four persons but two out of them have expired during the trial itself and one has been acquitted by the learned Magistrate. In other words, the present applicant Kapil Vastrakar is the only person who was convicted by the learned Magistrate under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, plus default stipulation. Learned lower appellate Court also approved the findings recorded by learned Magistrate as a whole by the judgment under challenge in this revision petition dated 18.08.2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 145/2006. Hence this revision.

(3.) Counsel for the accused/applicant submits that when co-accused Mannu has been acquitted by the trial Court, the present applicant should also have been extended the same benefit as the case of both of them rests on the same set of evidence. He submits that both the Courts below have not considered the evidence adduced by the defence in its proper perspective, and merely on the basis of testimony of the interested witnesses examined by the prosecution, he has been held guilty under Section 498-A IPC which is wholly unjustified. He submits that the prosecution did not bother to examine any independent witness to go into the veracity of the allegations made by the complainant. This apart, the question of territorial jurisdiction for setting the criminal law in motion against the accused/applicant has also not been given proper consideration by both the Courts below and therefore, also the accused/applicant is entitled for acquittal. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Hashim Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2017 2 SCC 198 and in the matter of Sitaram Paswan and another Vs. State of Bihar, 2005 AIR(SCW) 4713 and other decisions of the High Court.