JUDGMENT :

1. Since the present two Criminal Appeals, i.e. Cr.A. No.660/2022 and Cr.A. No.746/2022, filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, arise out of a common Judgment, also arise of a common FIR and a common trial, this Court proceeds to decide both the Appeals by this common Judgment.

2. The Cr.A.No. 660/2022 has been filed by mother-in-law and husband of the complainant/victim and Cr.A. No.746/2022 is by father-in-law of the complainant.

3. The challenge in the present Appeals is to the Judgment dated 02.04.2022 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bemetara, in Session Trial No. 40/2020.

4. In Criminal Appeal No.660/2022, vide the impugned Judgment, the appellants, i.e. the mother-in-law and husband of the complainant, both stand convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and also under Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. Each of them has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years & fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation, R.I. for 5 years & fine of Rs.15000/- with default stipulation and R.I. for 6 months & fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation, respectively, for the said offences.

5. Similarly, in Criminal Appeal No.746/2022, vide the impugned Judgment, the appellant, i.e. father-in-law of the complainant, also stands convicted under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 & Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years & fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation, R.I. for 5 years & fine of Rs.15000/- with default stipulation and R.I. for 6 months & fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation, respectively, for the said offences. In addition to the said offences, the father-in-law also stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376/511 and 354 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years & fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation and R.I. for 1 year & fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.

6. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage between Appellant No.2 in Cr.A. No. 660/2022 Sandeep Khatri and the Complainant Neetu Khatri is said to have taken place on 14.05.2014. In due course of time, there appears to a strained relationship developed between the two and also the inlaws. Things went extreme when the Complainant lodged a written complaint on 08.07.2020 before the Mahila Police Station, Bemetara, against the Appellants. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged on the basis of the said complaint, on 02.09.2020. In the written report as also in the FIR that was lodged, there was an allegation against the father-in-law Rajbir Khatri of trying to attempt rape on the Complainant and outraging her modesty. However, there was no specific date on which the father-in-law is said to have attempted to commit rape on her.

7. The matter was put to investigation. Thereafter, charge-sheet was filed and the matter was put to trial before First Additional Session Judge (FTC), Bemetara. During the course of trial, the Prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and no witness was examined in defence.

8. After recording of the statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the impugned Judgment was passed on 02.04.2022 wherein the Appellants have been found guilty and accordingly sentenced under the offences, as has already been narrated in the preceding paragraph.

9. It is relevant to mention here that all the three Appellants in both the Appeals have been released on bail vide order dated 04.05.2022. Even, at the time of grant of bail to the Appellants, the Complainant was noticed. She had appeared through a duly engaged counsel Shri Umakant Chandel and had not opposed the bail Applications. The Appellants were also on bail during trial.

10. Pending the proceedings before this Court, now an Application i.e. I.A. No.3 under Section 320(5) of Cr.P.C. has been filed for disposal of the Appeal in the light of the compromise that has been entered into between the Appellants and the Complainant N