The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of credibility and evidence in cases involving allegations of assault and harassment, leading to the benefit of doubt being granted to the accused.

R.K. Gauba, J.

By judgment dated 29.07.2002 in Sessions Case No.87/1998, the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) held the appellants guilty and convicted on charge for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The trial had been held on the basis of charges for offences punishable under Sections 307/34 IPC, Section 498-A/34 IPC and Section 406/34 IPC, the case also involving two others, namely, Kavita and Varsha as accused. By the aforementioned judgment, the trial court held that charges under Section 307/34 IPC and sections 406/34 IPC had not been proved. It was also held that the prosecution had failed to prove the complicity of Kavita and Varsha, who were thus, acquitted. By order dated 30.07.2002, the trial Judge awarded rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.2,000/- each as sentence for offence under Section 498-A IPC against the appellants herein directing that in default of payment of fine they would undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months, extending to them the benefit of set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the conviction for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and by the order on sentence passed in its wake, the present appeal was filed, the prime contention being that it is a motivated case set up on false accusations.

3. The acquittal of the appellants on the charge for offence under section 307 and 406 read with section 34 IPC or, for that matter, the acquittal of Kavita and Varsha on all the charges, on which they were put on trial, has not been challenged by the State by any appeal or petition. The said decision of the trial court, thus, has attained finality.

4. This appeal was presented in August, 2002 and the sentences were suspended by order dated 05.08.2002 whereby the appeal was entertained. The turn of the appeal to be taken up for final hearing has come up from the list of "regulars" after more than sixteen years.

5. Submissions of both sides have been heard at length and the record has been perused.

6. The case relates to the complaint of Sunita (PW-2), who was concededly married to the first appellant Govind Yadav (A1) in March, 1995. The second appellant Om Prakash (A2) is the father of A1, while the third appellant Laxmi Devi (A3) is the mother of A1. Kavita (A4) and Varsha (A5), who were also tried, were unmarried sisters of A1, role having been attributed to each of them in the various episodes that were narrated as the basis of accusations of cruelty being meted out to the complainant [Sunita (PW-2)]. The prosecution case primarily depended on the evidence of PW-2 and her parents, viz., Savitri (PW-5) and Kartar Singh (PW-7).

7. Prosecution had also referred to the evidence of Naresh (PW-8), maternal uncle of the complainant. But then, the procedure adopted for taking on board his version is unknown to law. He was not examined by the prosecution, but simply tendered for cross-examination at the hands of the defence counsel. His version, therefore, is not available.

8. Interestingly, in the present case the statement of the complainant was also recorded by Mr. B.S. Jaglan (PW-12) subdivisional magistrate (SDM), during the time she was assumably under treatment in the hospital for certain injury, even though there is nothing on record indicating any reason to believe that the complainant was under risk of losing her life on account of such injury. Besides these five witnesses, the prosecution also rested on the testimony of Dr. Maninder Chhabra (PW-6), the doctor who had recorded the medico-legal certificate (MLC) in Deen Dayal Upadhyay (DDU) hospital where the complainant had been taken in injured state on 24.04.1998.

9. The sequence of events leading to the registration of the first information report (FIR) No.242/1998 in the Police Station Paschim Vihar on 04.05.1998 need to be noted at the outset. As mentioned above, the complainant had been brought to DDU hospital in an injured state at about 1:15 p.m. on 24.04.1998. T