PYARCHAND Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants have preferred this Revision Petition against the judgment and order dated 20. 3. 1990 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, in Cr. Appeal No. 79/88 whereby the judgment and order made by A. C. J. M. , Ujjain, on 20. 9. 1988 wherein the applicants were convicted under Sections 326 and 498-A and sentenced to 3 years' R. I. and pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine 3 month's' S. I. and applicants No. 1 and 2 were further convicted Under Section 506 of the IPC and sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment each and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default of payment of fine 2 months' S. I. each have beer confirmed.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that the father of the complainant Chhotibai, (PW 1) had given Rs. 15. 000/- to Jagannath, the father-in-law of the complainant for getting the land of her uncle-in-law released from mortgage made by Jagannath. The father of Chhotibai was demanding this amount of Rs. 15,000/ - and the applicants who are husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law wanted that this amount should not be demanded for this purpose, they subjected her to cruelty. On the date of incident i. e. 24. 9. 1984 in the night at about 10-11 p. m. , the applicant No. 1, husband Pyarchand closed his bed-room from inside and gave' beating to Chhotibai and thereafter with the help of applicant No. 2 Umraobai, the mother-in-law and applicant No. 3-Sunita, sister-in-law of the complainant, felled Chhotibai on bed-stead and tied her with rope. Sunita pressed her mouth. Thereafter applicant No. 1 put iron rod on burning cow-dung, when it became hot, he thrusted it into true vagina of the complainant. She became unconscious. The information of burning tht complainant reached to her parents and her brother-m-law Amarsingh (PW 3 ). The latter Chhotibai was brought from the house of the applicants and sent her to hospital where Dr. Shailaja Pendharkar (PW2) examined her on 26. 9. 1984 at 12 p. m. and found three contusions on her left gleuteal region, on the outer surface of middle 1 /3rd of right thigh and on left half of back at the level of vertebra. She also found both labia, minora and majora swollen and oedemates inflammed and labia minora charred in side vide report Ex. P. 2. Chandu, the chowkidar of the village lodged FIR at P. S. Chimanganj Mandi which was recorded in Roznamcha Sanha No. 1411. Crime No. 128/84 was registered Under Sections 324,498-A and 506 of the IPC. After investigation, challan was filed. After recording evidence, the learned A. C. J. M. acquitted Jagannath, the father-in-law and convicted and sentenced the applicants as stated above, and being unsuccessful in appeal, they have preferred this revision.

(3.) MR. Jaisingh, learned Counsel for the applicants/submitted that the learned Courts below failed to take into consideration the admissions made by the complainant Chhotibai in paragraph 12 of her statement therein she admitted that applicant Nos. 2 and 3 Umraobai and Sunita Were outside the room when applicant No. 1 Pyarchand tied the complainant with rope and caused burn injuries to the complainant. Hence, the judgment is perverse. He also submitted that the applicant No. 1-husband also deserves acquittal. Mr. Chourasiya, learned Panel Lawyer supported the impugned judgments rendered by both the Courts below.