The court upheld the principles of justice by balancing conviction with rehabilitative measures in domestic cases, emphasizing evidence evaluation.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.

Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against judgment and order dated 23.01.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh, in Cr. Appeal No.01/2022 whereby, the learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal filed by the accused-respondents No.2 to 4 and modified the judgment and order of conviction dated 20.12.2021, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh in Regular Cr. Case No.1436/2018. The learned appellate court by its order acquitted the accused-respondents No.3 & 4, Sandeep & Jagdish Chandra, from offence under Section 498A IPC and while maintaining the conviction of accused-respondent No.2 Pankaj for offence under Section 498A IPC, set aside his sentence and instead gave him the benefit of probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act and directed him to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the petitioner/complainant.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that 04.04.2018, the petitioner/complainant submitted a written report before the concerned Police Station to the effect that her marriage was solemnized with the accused-respondent No.2 Pankaj on 30.04.2015 according to Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, her parents provided a dowry commensurate with their financial capacity. Out of the said wedlock, one male child was born. It was alleged that after some time of marriage, her husband and his family members started harassing the petitioner- complainant for bringing picayune dowry and also gave beatings and subsequently, the accused-respondents ousted the petitioner/ complainant from the matrimonial home. On the said report, Police registered a case and started investigation.

3. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused respondents. Thereafter, the trial court framed charges for offences under Sections 498A, 406 IPC. The accused respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses in support of its case and exhibited certain documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused respondents were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.

5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 20.12.2021 while acquitting the accused-respondents from offence under Section 406 IPC, convicted and sentenced them for offence under Section 498A IPC.

6. Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the accused-respondents preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be partly allowed vide judgment dated 23.01.2023. The learned appellate court acquitted the accused-respondent No.3 & 4 from offence under  Section 498A IPC and while maintaining the conviction of the accused- respondent No.2 for offence under Section 498A IPC, passed by the trial court, set aside his sentence and instead gave the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Act and also directed the respondent No.2 to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the petitioner-complainant. Hence, this revision petition on behalf of the petitioner/complainant.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant argued that learned appellate court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused-respondents No.3 & 4 from offence under  Section 498A IPC and in giving benefit of probation to the accused- respondent No.2 despite the fact that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Counsel submits that there is ample evidence available on record against the accused- respondents for commission of offence under Section 498A IPC, yet, the appellate court did not consider the evidence in right perspective and despite conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 498A IPC to the accused-respondents, the appellate court acquitted the accused- respondents No.3 & 4 and while maintaining the conviction of the respondent No.2, set aside the sent