IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that for a conviction under Section 498A IPC, specific allegations of cruelty must be substantiated, and the potential for misuse of this provision must be considered in sentencing.

JUDGMENT :

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

2. The present criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 17.12.2014 passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Gumla in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.01.2013 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla in G.R. 1090 of 2006 (T.R. No. 186 of 2013) arising out of Sisai (Bharno) P.S. Case No. 144 of 2006, whereby the petitioners have been held guilty for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo S.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default stipulation, has been affirmed.

3. The factual matrix of the case giving rise to this revision is that informant Usha Devi was married with petitioner Ajay Oaon in the year 2004 and out of their wedlock, they were blessed with one son, who was about 1½ years at the time of institution of FIR in the year 2006. As per FIR, the allegation is that since last six months ago, she was being assaulted by her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law at her matrimonial home and she was driven away along with her child from the matrimonial home and was residing at her parental home and earning her livelihood as a maid servant. She came to know that her husband was going to solemnize second marriage with a girl of Village – Moregaon and on that day, there was marwa ceremony, then she went to verify the matter and found to be true and lodged this case. Accordingly, Sisai (Bharno) P.S. Case No. 144 of 2006 dated 29.12.2006 was registered for the offence under Sections 498A, 494 / 511 of I.P.C.

4. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against all the three accused persons, who were put under trial. After conclusion of trial, petitioners were held guilty for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and acquitted for the offence under Sections 494 & 511 of the I.P.C. and all the accused persons were sentenced to undergo S.I. for two years along with fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default stipulation.

5. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence of petitioners was challenged in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2013 before the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla, which was heard and disposed of vide judgment dated 17.12.2014 by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Gumla, whereby the conviction and sentence of the petitioners was upheld and confirmed and appeal was dismissed, which has been assailed in this revision.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that neither in the FIR nor in the evidence of victim any specific overt act has been attributed against any of the petitioners. There is no whisper that any illegal demand of money was ever asked by the petitioners from the victim or her parents and she was not pressurized and harassed for its fulfillment. There was very cordial relationship between husband and wife with all the family members and within 1½ years of marriage, she was blessed with a son, but due to quarrelsome nature, she voluntarily left her matrimonial home and never joined the company of her husband, inspite of several attempts made by the petitioners. There is no specific day and time when the victim was ill-treated, tortured mentally or physically by the petitioners and on which day, she was driven away from her matrimonial home. No injury report showing physical assault has been brought on record. No circumstance has been proved showing any grave conduct by the petitioners, which were likely to drive her to commit suicide or was dangerous to her life or limb. The victim has traced out a false and concocted story that since her husband was going to solemnize second marriage with one girl of Village – Moregaon, she had lodged this case. This fact has not been proved with cogent evidence and not accepted by the trial court