The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of specific allegations, consistent evidence, and the nature of evidence in upholding a conviction under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of considering territorial jurisdiction and legal sustainability of charges under the Dowry Prohibition Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Ms. Priya Shrestha, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the opposite party - State.

3. The present criminal revision application is directed against the order dated 18.08.2012 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Giridih in Cr. Appeal No. 59/2010, whereby the learned appellate court upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code passed on 02.08.2010 by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in G.R. Case No. 1676/2006, T.R. No. 229/2010. However, the learned appellate court set-aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for offence under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also acquitted the other 06 accused persons from all the charges thereunder.

4. The learned trial court had convicted the petitioner and 06 others under Section 498(A) of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and had sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 498(A) of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Arguments of the petitioner

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the informant, who has been convicted for offence under Section 498(A) of Indian Penal Code. He submitted that the other family members of the petitioner, who were also made accused in the present case, the have been ultimately acquitted by the learned appellate court on the ground that no specific allegation was made against them. Learned counsel also submitted that the case of the petitioner is on similar footing as that of the other accused persons and the conviction of the petitioner has been sustained only on account of the fact that he is the husband.

6. Learned counsel also raised the point that the entire occurrence had taken place at Jamtara and the present case was instituted at Giridih where the parents of the girl were residing and therefore, the court at Giridih had no territorial jurisdiction for trial of the case.

7. Learned counsel further submitted that all the accused including the petitioner were initially convicted for offence under Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 also, but the appellate court vide impugned order, set aside their conviction under Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

8. Learned counsel has pointed out that a defence witness was examined, who had exhibited the documentary evidence i.e. Ext. A – Signature of Advocate on Matrimonial Case No.112 of 2006, Ext.-B- Plaint of Matrimonial Case No.1112 of 2006, Ext. C – certified copy of Complaint Case No.29 of 2006 and Ext. D certified copy of order-sheet of Matrimonial Case No.07 of 2007 and Ext. D/A certified copy of order sheet of Complaint Case No.29 of 2006. He further submitted that the informant in the present case has admitted during her evidence that prior to this case, the petitioner had lodged a criminal case against her in Jamtara and he had also filed a divorce case against her in Dumka. Learned counsel has submitted that considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner is fit to be set aside.

9. Learned counsel has also submitted that so far as sentence is concerned, the same is also on the excessive side, in as much as, there is no allegation of any assault by the petitioner and on the ground that the allegation of assault was general in nature, other co-accused persons have been acquitted by the learned appellate court.

Arguments of the opposite party-State

10. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer and submitted that within a short span of marriage which had taken place on 13.07.2005, the relationship between the petitioner and the informant got strained and the petitioner accompanied the informant to his in-laws’ place and raised a