Judgment:
R.K. Merathia, J.
1. Heard Mr. B.K. Prasad, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 17th September and order of sentence dated 20th September, 2003 passed by Sri. Prakash Rai, Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 485 of 1997 whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.
3. A complaint was filed on 4.12.1996 by Smt. Laxmi Mishra (P.W. 4) alleging torture for demand of dowry against the appellants who are her husband and mother-in-law respectively. The alleged dates of occurrences were 5.11.1994, 13.9.1996 and 3.12.1996. The offences alleged were under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. The allegations in short are as follows: The complainant was married with appellant No. 1 on 14.6.1993 according to Hindu rites and customs. On 18.6.1993 she went to her matrimonial home with her husband (appellant No. 1) at Ramnagar in Hazaribagh. At the time of marriage, her father gave Rs. 35,000 in cash as Tilak to the appellant No. 1 and also gave gold ornaments, cloths and domestic utensils, etc. The total value of cash and materials was Rs. 73,000 (Approximately). A few days after marriage, she was asked to bring a motor-cycle and Rs. 80,000 in cash from her parents. On hearing that her father was incapable to fulfil the demands, the appellants started harassing and ill-treating her. On 21.6.1993 the complainant came back to her parental home with her father and brother. Appellant No. 1 used to visit her regularly and asked for motor-cycle and cash. Thereafter a male child was born out of the wedlock on 12.5.1994. On 14.5.1994 appellants came to her parents' house and started abusing her and parents on knowing that their demands have been ignored by her father, they left the place. In the month of October 1994 on the occasion of Vijaydashmi Day, appellant No. 1, under social pressure, took her to her matrimonial home. Her father and brother also accompanied her but they returned the same evening. She was, thereafter, again ill-treated and manhandled from the very next day.
On 5.11.1994 at 5.30 P.M. in evening, the appellants started abusing and beating her with a stick. Finding no way out, she rushed out of the house. The landlord of the house sent her back to her parental house. She was not even allowed to take anything with her. On 15.6.1996 her maternal father-in-law and maternal mother-in-law took her to her matrimonial home situated at Shivpuri, Hazaribagh on the assurance that post happenings will not be repeated. She remained there with the appellants for about four months but after lapse of some days, behaviours of appellants started changing and she was being harassed and manhandled for fulfilment of the said demand. Thereafter she wrote letters to her mother and 'Bhabhi' on 5.9.1996 about her pathetic condition. Thereafter, neighbour of the appellant No. 2 Umesh Dubey informed her father on 28.8.1996 that appellant No. 2 has beaten her for fulfilment of the said demand on that day and appellants regularly tortured her. Her father had already submitted written complaint in this regard in the police station against the accused persons on 28.8.1996.
On 13.9.1996 while she was worshiping, appellants poured kerosene oil on her body and was about to lit her. She started shouting and crying for help. Having heard her cry, the neighbours entered the house and saved her and informed her father who thereafter took her back to her parental home. She was not allowed to take anything except her son. Since then, she along with her child is staying with her father. In the meantime, appellant No. 2 made false complaint to the superintendent of police, Hazaribagh against the father and brother of the complainant. The police after investigation found said case to be false; rather the report shows that she was harassed and beaten. Report further shows that appellants may cause her death if she is sent to her matrimonial home.
On 3.12.1996 the appellants came to the parental house of the complainant and made such demand and threatened her with dire consequences and tried to drag her to her matrimonial home. On the same day in the afternoon, the complainant along with her father went to the police station and wanted to lodge complaint against the appellants but the police refused to register the case and, therefore, the complaint was filed.
5. Charges were framed under Sections 307, 406 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Prosecution examined altogether eight witnesses. P.Ws. 5 and 8 are formal witnesses. P.W. 4 is complainant herself. P.W. 2 is her father and P.W. 7 is her brother. P.W. 6 is Jeweller. P.W. 1 Umesh Dubey and P.W. 3 Ganesh Mahto are neighbours of the complainant. Defence has examined one witness who has proved Exts. A to C to show that appellant No. 2 was hospitalized between 24.11.1996 and 2.12.1996 to treatment of her injuries.
6. Learned Trial Court disbelieved the prosecution case for the alleged offences under Sections 307 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibitition Act and acquitted the appellants under the aforesaid charges, but on the same set of evidences, convicted them under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
7. Mr. B.K. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that from the complaint itself, it will appear that the same was lodged with oblique motive and with extreme exaggeration. Mr. Prasad further submitted that Court having disbelieved the case of demand of dowry, which was basis of alleged torture, the appellants should not have been convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code on the same set of evidences. Mr. Prasad further submitted that this is a peculiar case in which the demand of dowry started from the very next day of the marriage and the same continued till a date prior to the filing of the complaint. It is admitted in paragraph-6 of the complaint that appellant No. 1 used to visit her (complainant) regularly. A male child was born on 12.5.1994. As per the allegation, on 5.11.1994 complainant was taken to her parental home when she tried to rush out from her matrimonial home due to torture. Mr. Prasad submitted that this story is inherently unnatural and improbable. He further submitted that as per the allegation, her maternal father-in-law and maternal mother-in-law took her to her matrimonial home at Shivpuri, Hazaribagh on the assurance that past happening will not be repeated, which shows that neither it was a case of torture nor it was the case of demand of dowry. Mr. Prasad further submitted that admittedly, complainant remained in her matrimonial home for about four months only and her alleged letter about torture on her, has been disbelieved by the Trial Court. He further submitted that though P.W. 1 Umesh Dubey was the neighbour of the appellants, but he was obliged by the father of the complainant who was the police officer. Mr. Prasad further submitted that the story of 13th September, 1996 regarding pouring of kerosene oil on the body of complainant and trying to set her on fire, has also been disbelieved by the Trial Court. Mr. Prasad further submitted that on the complaint lodged by the appellant No. 2, no action was taken by the police as because, both father and brother of the complainant were police officers. Mr. Prasad further submitted that the purported police report was submitted on the complaint lodged by the appellant No. 2, by the police officer under whom the brother of the complainant was working. Moreover, the Trial Court has rightly ignored the same. Mr. Prasad further submitted that it is absolutely unnatural and improbable that the appellants went to the parental home of the complainant, demanded dowry, threatened her with dire consequences and tried to drag her to her matrimonial home, while she was living with her father and brother, who were police officers. Mr. Prasad further submitted that it is further surprising that police refused to register a case on behalf of the family of the police officers.
8. Mr. Prasad with reference to paragraph-20 of the judgment of the Trial Court submitted that in her purported letter, the complainant did not mention about the said demand of Rs. 80,000. He further submitted that father of the complainant (P.W.2) has admitted in paragraph-25 of the evidence that he did not give a single paisa as dowry to the appellants at the time of marriage and whatever he had given to his daughter was her 'Stridhan'. Her father further admitted in Para-29 of his evidence that a sum of Rs. 25,000 was not given as dowry at the time of marriage. Mr. Prasad submitted that after considering materials on record, threadbare, the Trial Court held that prosecution has failed to prove the charges under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He further submitted that in para-22, the learned Trial Court simply reiterated the complaint petition, in paragraph-23 of the judgment, submissions of the learned defence Counsel were noted and then in paragraph-24, he convicted the appellants, only on the presumption that the complainant in order to save her marriage, did not choose to file cases for the alleged occurrences dated 5.11.1994 to 13.9.1996. Mr. Prasad further submitted that there may be some other differences/disputes between the parties, but prosecution has not been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the appellants tortured the complainant. He urged that having found that the evidence regarding the charges under Sections 307 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were not trustworthy, the learned Trial Court should not have convicted the appellants under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Prasad pointed out several vital contradictions in the prosecution case about the places of occurrence and other matters.
9. Mr. Srivastava, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, could not dispute the said position.
10. Mr. Prasad also pointed out that in fact appellant No. 2 was assaulted by the brother and father of the complainant for which she was hospitalized for 10 days, which is supported by Ext. B. He further submitted that when appellants were in jail, taking advantage of the situation, their house was also demolished at the behest of the father and brother of the complainant, who were police officers.
11. Mr. Prasad lastly submitted that appellants have remained in jail for about two years and they have already suffered sentences but in view of this illegal conviction, the careers of the appellant No. 1 and services of appellant No. 2 are at stake.
12. After scrutinizing the materials on record carefully, I am inclined to agree with the submissions of Mr. Prasad that appellants should not be convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal on the basis of same set of evidences, which were not found trustworthy by the Trial Court for acquitting the appellants of the charges under Sections 307 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, It appears that prosecution case is grossly exaggerated. Prosecution has failed to prove the charges under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubts. There is no cogent material on record to convict the appellants under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. They deserve benefit of doubt.
13. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction dated 17th September, 2003 and order of sentence dated 20th September, 2003 against the appellants under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. The appellants are discharged from their bail bonds. The fine deposited by them should be returned to them.