The court emphasized that convictions under IPC Section 498A require consistent and credible evidence, noting the contradictory testimonies that invalidated the conviction.

ORDER :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

This revision petition is filed challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.224/2009 dated 10.06.2016 and the confirmation of the judgment of the in respect of Section 498A of IPC by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.10008/2016 dated 30.01.2017.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the complainant – Kasthuri had married this petitioner/accused on 25.04.1993 and after the marriage, accused started ill-treating the complainant by physically and mentally for one or the other reasons. On 05.04.2009 at about 10.00 p.m., the accused assaulted the complainant and pulled her hair and smash the head against the wall and gave the life threat. Hence, a case was filed against the accused. The police have registered the case, investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet. The accused did not plead guilty and claims for trial. The complainant in order to prove her case, examined herself as PW1 and also examined nine witnesses as PW2 to PW10 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P6. The accused subjected to 313 statement and not led any defence evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A and 506 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for each offences with fine of Rs.5,000/- for each offences. The said judgment of the Trial Court was challenged before the First Appellate Court by the accused in Crl.A.No.10008/2013 and the First Appellate Court having reassessed the material on record allowed the appeal in part and acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC and confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence in respect of offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence of both the Courts, the present appeal is filed before this Court by the accused.

3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the Courts have failed to consider the material on record in a proper perspective while convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. The Courts below erred in appreciating the fact that witnesses to the incident are interested witnesses. Apart from the fact that they are tutored and under the undue influence of the complainant as she was the member of Sagar Nagara Sabha and the witnesses deposed before the Court against the petitioner. The Courts below erred in considering the evidence of PW8 and PW9 who are not the witnesses sighted in the charge-sheet nor they are subject to the investigation before the Investigating Officer. It is also contend that the First Appellate Court ought to have allowed the appeal in its entirety as the witnesses sighted by the police have not supported the view point of the complainant and the same is clear violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. The counsel also would vehemently contend that even invoked the penal provision of Section 498A of IPC, there is no ingredients are found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and hence, the Courts below committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 498A of IPC.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the State would vehemently contend that there are material in respect of the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and same has been appreciated by both the Courts and hence, not committed any error and rightly answered point No