IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, the admissibility of evidence from a minor witness, and the consideration of proportionality in sentencing.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH CHAND, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 01.03.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-III, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 44 of 2008, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under Sections 323, 498A and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for one year under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and RI for three years under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code with a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was further directed to undergo SI for one month. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case leading to this Criminal Appeal are that the informant Jasbir Kaur had given the written information to the police station concerned with these allegations that she was married nine years ago with Sardar Harjinder Singh in the year 1998 according to rites and rituals. Two baby girls were born out of the wedlock. One was seven years old and another was five years old. After two years of marriage, she was started being tortured and also hurled abuse by her husband. The informant somehow tolerated all these in order to save her married life. It has been further alleged that her husband had made effort to set her ablaze after pouring kerosene over her. Her husband used to assault her with the weapon, which was available to him at that time. On 26.10.2007, she was ousted from the matrimonial house along with her two children. Now the informant was residing at her parental house and this FIR was lodged by the informant-victim, which was registered as Dhanbad (Bhuli) P.S. Case No. 802 of 2007 under Sections 323, 498-A, 397 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The Investigating Officer after having concluded the investigation, filed charge-sheet against the accused Harjinder Singh under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate concerned took cognizance on the charge-sheet and committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, which was transferred by the Court of Sessions Judge, Dhanbad to the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-III, Dhanbad.

4. The learned trial Court framed the charge against the accused Harjinder Singh for the offence under Sections 323, 498-A, 504 and 307of the Indian Penal Code. The same was read over and explained to him, he denied the charge and claimed to face the trial.

5. On behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused in oral evidence examined altogether five witnesses i.e. PW-1, Surender Kaur; PW-2, Jagprit Kaur; PW-3, Mukhtar Singh; PW-4, Jasbir Kaur and; PW-5, Baban Singh and in documentary evidence the prosecution has filed Exhibit-1, Signature of Jasbir Kaur on the written report; Exhibit-2, Forwarding of the case; Exhibit-2/1, Registration of the Case and Exhibit-2/2, Formal FIR.

6. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, in which, he denied the incriminating circumstances in evidence against him and stated himself to be innocent. No defence evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.

7. The learned trial Court after hearing the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the accused and learned counsel for the State, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 01.03.2011 holding the accused guilty for the offence under Section 323, 498-A and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as stated hereinabove.

8. Aggrieved from the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 01.03.2011, this Criminal Appeal has been preferred on behalf of the convict on the ground that the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned Court below is bad in the eyes of law. The learned Court below has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. There is no evidence in regard to the demand