ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition is directed against the impugned judgment dated 3.9.1998, passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 305/1997, affirming the judgment dated 30.9.1997, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No.121/ 1996, whereby, convicting the accused applicants for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 200 each. 2r As per the case of the prosecution, on 7.5.1996, First information Report Ex.P/1 was lodged by complainant Smt Kaushalya Bai (PW1) alleging in it that her marriage was solemnized with applicant No.1 Ashok Kumar some time in the year 1992 and from the beginning she was subjected to taunt by the accused persons by saying that less dowry has been brought by her. THEy also used to say that she is un-lueky for the family and she was also beaten by the accused persons. It is also alleged that applicant No.l Ashok Kumar has got married again with one Raj Kumari Bai. On 06.05.1996, complainant was beaten by her husband - applicant No.1 Ashok Kumar by a club, as a result of which she sustained various injuries. 3. So as to hold the accused/applicants guilty, prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses. Statements of accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charge levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties and recording the evidence vide judgment dated 30.09.1997, the trial Court has convicted the accused-applicants for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- each. This judgment of learned trial Court was assailed by the applicants before the appellate Court, however, the same has been affirmed by the appellate Court. 5. THE contention of Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicants is that, so far as applicants No.2 and 3, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant are concerned, they are old and there is no specific allegation against them, but only general allegations have been levelled against them. Learned counsel submits that, as per the evidence of PW/1 Smt Kaushalya Bai, when she was in her in-laws' house, her husband used to torture and beat her by saying that she has brought less dowry. Learned counsel also submits that in respect .of applicants Nos. 2 and 3, only allegation is that they used to say that less dowry has been brought by the complainant. Learned counsel further submits that similar evidence has been given by Amoli (PW/2) and Kejuram (PW/3). Learned conusel submits that these witnesses are hearsay witnesses and have not seen any such incident. Learned counsel further submits that PW/8 Baijnath has categorically stated that the ornaments given by the accused persons to the complainant were sold by her father and it is these ornaments, which were demanded by applicant No.l Ashok Kumar and not the other ornaments or any dowry. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State supports the impugned judgment and submits that on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, all the accused persons have been rightly convicted by the two Courts below under Section 498-A of the IPC and therefore, in a revision petition this Court cannot take a different view from the view which has already taken by the two Courts below. 7. From the evidence of Smt Kaushalya Bai (PW/1), it appears that mainly she has made allegations against her husband Ashok Kumar by saying that he used to torture and beat her, and in respect of the other two accused, the only allegation is that, they used to say that less dowry has been brought by her. 8. Amoli (PW/2) has also categorically stated in para 2 of his examination-in-chief that on one occasion he heard that applicant No.1 Ashok Kumar was beating his wife, however, he does not know as to why she was being beaten. No allegation whatsoever has been made by this witness against applicants Nos. 2 and 3 9. Similar is the evidence of Kejuram (PW/3) who has stated that it is the husband Ashok Kumar who used to beat the complainant. This witness has also not made any allegation against applicants Nos, 2 and 3. 10. Sitaram (PW/4), though is an hearsay witness, but he too has made allegations against applicant No.1 Ashok Kumar and not against any other accused. Similar is the evidence of Ramkumar (PW/5). Dr. Shaila Milton (PW/7), who has examined the complainant on 07.05.1996, has found number of injuries on the person of the complainant and thus, it appears that the complainant, was beaten by accused Ashok Kumar. Baijnath (PW/8) has also made allegations only against accused Ashok Kumar and not against any other accused persons. 11. After going through the entire evidence and the judgments of the two Courts below this Court is of the firm opinion that conviction of applicant No.1 for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC is fully justified, as there is sufficient evidence on record against this accused. So far as applicants Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, from the evidence of the witnesses, it is clear that, there is no allegation against these two accused persons and only general allegation is made by the complainant. In the considered opinion of this Court, the conviction of applicants Nos.2 and 3 cannot be sustained as the same is not justified. 12. At this stage, learned counsel for the , applicants submits that the applicants including applicant No.1 Ashok Kumar has already remained in jail for about 26 days; the incident had taken place in the year 1996 and no useful purpose would be served in again sending the accused -applicant No.1 to jail after more than 13 years.: 13. Taking into consideration the entire material available on record, ends of justice would be met if applicant No.l Ashok Kumar is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 14. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed. Conviction of applicant No.1 Ashok Kumar is maintained. However, he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. Conviction and sentence imposed upon applicant Nos.2 and. 3 namely, Maituram and Daulaurin Bai under Section 498-A of the IPC are set aside. THE accused/ applicant Nos.2 and 3 namely, Maituram and Daulaurin Bai are acquitted of the charge levelled against them. THEy are on bail and their bail bond's are discharged. Petition allowed partly.