The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of cogent evidence to prove charges under IPC 498A and the need for a complete chain of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 2nd November 2006 passed by Additional sessions Judge-FTC IV at Hazaribag in criminal appeal No. 80/2006 whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.06.2006 passed by learned SDJM, Hazaribagh in Complaint case No. 555/2000, corresponding to T.R. No. 169/2006, wherein the learned trail court has held the petitioners guilty for having committed offence u/s 498 A I.P.C and convicted them and ordered petitioner No. 1 to undergo R.I. for one year along with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment, further to undergo 3 months, whereas petitioner no. 2 was released on furnishing bond for maintaining peace for 2 years, has been affirmed and the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed.

3. The brief fact of the case is that a complaint petition was filed and registered as complaint case no. 555/2000 before learned C.J.M Hazaribagh u/S 498 A, 341, 342, 323 I.P.C and section 3/ 4 Dowry prohibition Act. As per the petition, the complainant/O.P.No.2-Chinta Devi was married with petitioner no. 1-Krishna Pd. Mehta in the month of June 1997. After marriage O.P.No.2-Chinta Devi went to her sasural for 4 days then she came to her Naihar. After performing ceremony the complainant again went to her sasural after 2 months in year 1997. Thereafter return to Naihar after remaining in her sasural for few days. In 1997 after chhatt festival complainant/O.P.No.2 went to her sasural where she was being ill-treated by not providing food and not even allowed to wash cloths and a demand of Rs.20,000/- and color TV was made. Therefore, the complainant/O.P.No.2 filed complaint case before the learned C.J.M.

4. Ms. Rinki Kumari, leanred Amicus appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds as the same have not been rightly appreciated by the court below:-

(i) The impugned judgment is improper and against the material available in the record as well as due to wrong appreciation of the evidence.

(ii) The learned trial court wrongly convicted the appellant/petitioners for offence of torture/assault u/s 498 A I.P.C. though it disbelieved the allegation about demand for dowry and torture.

(iii) The learned trial Court wrongly convicted the appellant even after holding the basis of allegation of assault as false but surprisingly, jumped upon conclusion that petitioners have assaulted the complainant.

(iv) The Appellants/Petitioners were illegally and improperly held guilty of assaulting the complainant even in absence of medical evidence inspite of that she deposed that she was seriously and brutally assaulted and she had been treated by doctor.

(v) The learned trial Court relied on oral evidence of witnesses inspite of the evidence of the complainant who admitted that there was no witness present when she was assaulted.

(vi) The learned Court below also ignored the evidence of complainant wherein she admitted that she lived at her father’s house after marriage because her husband had been living in Faridabad.

(vii) The learned Court below failed to appreciate that no offence had been committed on the alleged dates of occurrence as were not proved in course of evidence.

(viii) The Appellants/ Petitioners have been wrongly and improperly convicted u/S 498 A I.P.C. even though the allegation of assault or torture was not proved by the evidence.

(ix) The learned trial Court ought to have acquitted the Appellants holding that the complaint case had been filed after fabricated false story.

Further, learned Amicus for the petitioner relied upon several judgments to substantiate her point and contends that the perversity is apparent in the order of trial court as well as the appellate court; as such petitioners require acquittal.

In support of her contention learned Amicus has relied upon the following judgments:-

(a) Girdhar Shankar Tawade vs State Of Maharashtra on 24 April, 2002 (Sup