SURENDRA AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since these Criminal Revisions arise out of common judgment dated 09.03.2004 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge Raigarh in Criminal Appeals- 17 and 18 of 2003, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) These revision petitions have been filed against the common judgment dated 09.03.2004 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raigarh in Criminal Appeals No.17 and 18 of 2003, whereby the learned Additional Session Judge has confirmed the CRR-163 and 164 of 2004 judgment dated 20.01.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh in Criminal Case No.721 of 1998 convicting each of the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and sentencing them to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/- with default stipulation.

(3.) The prosecution case in brief is that marriage of complainant- Uma Agrawal took place on 13.02.1992 and she was residing with her husband- Rajendra Agrawal at her matrimonial house at Dharamjaigarh. Applicant- Surendra Agrawal is her brother-in-law (Jeth). After two days of her marriage, the applicants started demanding dowry and began to harass her. On many occasions, the applicants used to torture and assault the complainant, if their demand of dowry was not fulfilled. Her father tried to pacify them by giving some money every now and then, but the matter could not be settled. The complainant and her husband started living separately after one and half year. A child was born out of their wedlock, even then, she was continuously subjected to cruelty. After six years of her marriage, when her patience reached to an end, she lodged a written complaint on 28.10.1998 against her husband- Rajendra Agrawal and brother-in-law- Surendra Agrawal (Jeth) on the basis of which an FIR bearing Crime No.103 of 1998 has been registered against the present applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of IPC and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation, charge sheet was filed before CRR-163 and 164 of 2004 JMFC Dharamjaigarh and learned trial Court after conclusion of trial, though acquitted the applicants of the charge under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, convicted and sentenced them as stated herein above. That finding of learned trial court has been affirmed by learned appellate Court in Criminal Appeals- 17 and 18 of 2003. Against that judgment, these revision petitions have been preferred by the applicants. Applicants have paid the fine amount imposed upon them by the trial Court and the receipt is kept on record.