IMPORTANT POINT
Cruelty, hurt, insult and criminal intimidation – Conviction and sentence cannot be sustained where witnesses have given a contrary version.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

The present Criminal Appeal No.2291 of 2008 is by the accused challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge, Patan on 29.08.2008 in Special Atrocity Case No.24 of 2007. The proceeding was under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘I.P.C.’) and Section 3(i)(x)(xi) of the of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “Atrocities Act”). Accused No.1 came to be convicted under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506(2). While accused No.2 was convicted under Sections 498A, 323, 504 read with Section 114 of the I.P.C.

1.1 During the pendency of the appeal accused No.1 – Chaudhary Pravinbhai Lavjibhai, husband of the complainant died, therefore, his name was deleted from the cause title of all three appeals and the matters stood abated against him.

2. Criminal Appeal No.2756 of 2008 filed by the State challenges the order of acquittal for the offence punishable under Section 3(i)(x) and (xi) of the Atrocities Act making a prayer to set aside the acquittal. While Criminal Appeal No.2757 of 2008 by the State is with a prayer to enhance the sentence in the conviction judgment.

3. The appellant as accused No.2 – Chaudhary Rajiben Wife of Lavjibhai Bababhai and as motherin- law of complainant, was sentenced for three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 498A read with Section 114 of I.P.C. and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.300/- and in default of payment of fine further seven days simple imprisonment. For the offence under Section 323 read with Section 114 I.P.C., the fine of Rs.300/- was ordered with default stipulation of undergoing seven days simple imprisonment in failure to pay the fine. Similar order was passed for the offence punishable under Section 504 I.P.C. of Rs.300/- fine and in failure to serve seven days simple imprisonment.

3.1 The endorsement on record by the Superintendent of Sessions Court, Patan shows that both the accused had paid the fine amount.

4. Learned advocate Mr. D.K. Chaudhari submitted that since the appellant No.1 is no more, the case would now has to be analysed only for the purpose of appellant No.2 - mother-in-law of the complainant. Advocate Mr. Chaudhari for the appellants stated that the complaint itself would suggests that at no point of time, the complainant had stayed with mother-in-law. The allegations on the face of record qua the present appellant as mother-in-law stands proved as false, inspite of that, learned Trial Court Judge has failed to consider the same in favour of the present appellant-accused.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Chaudhari submitted that the case has been made grave just because of the fact that the complainant belongs to a community, which falls under the Atrocities Act.

4.2 Advocate Mr. Chaudhari further stated that the complaint does not appear to have been independently filed, as the family members and President of the caste appears to have filed the complaint. Advocate Mr. Chaudhari stated that deposition of the witness as of A.S.I. clarifies that the complaint was dictated by Ambalal Tabhani, the President of the community.

4.3 Learned advocate Mr. Chaudhari stated that it was a love marriage and the marriage was registered at Surat. The complainant and deceased appellant both were staying together. Out of their matrimonial life, they have two daughters, and the fact appears to have been got up since the settlement could not be arrived at. Advocate Mr. Chaudhari stated that the complainant was staying in Nari Suraksha Gruh at Ranuj and till that period and thereafter too, there was no occasion for the complainant to stay with the mother-in-law.

4.4 Advocate Mr. Chaudhari submitted that as per his instruction at present the complainant along with two daughters is with mother-in-law. Mr. Chaudhari stated that none of the sections would get invoked against the present appellant and the complaint is misuse of law absolutely against the mo