The court affirmed the conviction under Section 498-A IPC, ruling that previous acquittal did not bar retrial due to distinct allegations, and sufficient evidence of cruelty and dowry demands was established.

JUDGMENT :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

These criminal revisions have been filed against the common judgment dated 13.08.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in Criminal Appeal No.73 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal and has affirmed the judgment of conviction under Section 498-A of IPC and the order of sentence dated 19.05.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih in T.R. No.915 of 2018, arising out of Bengabad P.S. Case No. 34 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. Case No.618 of 2015.

2. The learned trial court has convicted the petitioners for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and has sentenced the petitioners to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional Simple Imprisonment for one month. The period of custody undergone by the petitioners was directed to be set off against the period of sentence awarded to them.

3. Cr. Revision No.1361 of 2019 has been filed by the husband of the informant and Cr. Revision No.1362 of 2019 has been filed by the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the informant.

Submissions on behalf of the petitioners

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the impugned judgments, submitted that the impugned judgments are perverse and call for interference. He submitted that there has been repeated cases and counter cases between the parties and on each occasion, there was compromise and the informant of the case went to her matrimonial house. He submitted that these criminal revisions arise out of a complaint case which was sent for investigation by the police. He referred to the complaint petition of the informant and submitted that the informant has stated that there was demand of Rs.20,000/- and one colour mobile with camera. The cause of action to file the complaint arose with the allegation that there was a demand of Rs.50,000/- on 04.02.2015 and it was asserted that in the Anjuman, the accused persons had stated that unless Rs.50,000 is paid, they will not take the informant. The learned counsel further submitted that none of the witnesses has whispered a word in connection with demand of Rs.50,000 in Anjuman, which was said to be demanded on 03.02.2015. He further submitted that in one of the cases being Complaint Case No. 647 of 2010, the petitioners were acquitted on merits as well as on compromise.

5. The learned counsel further submitted that the witnesses in their cross-examinations have not stated the year and date on which the alleged demand was made from the informant of the case or from her family members, rather they have specifically stated that they do not remember the date and year of the demand. He also submitted that PW-4 who is the informant of the case stated that when she became pregnant for the second time, she was sent to her parents for delivery, and thereafter, the petitioners had filed a case for her bidai which was apparently on account of restitution of conjugal rights and she has further stated that after she was taken back, she was thrown out of her matrimonial house and she was deprived of food and cloths. The learned counsel further submitted that altogether three children were born out of wedlock which she has stated in Paragraph-11 of her examination-in-chief. The learned counsel submitted that PW-4 in her cross-examination has also failed to give the date of birth of the three children and specific date with regard to the demand of Rs.20,000/-and color mobile with camera. She has stated that since she is illiterate, she does not remember the date of such demand.

6. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners were already subjected to trial on account of the demand of Rs.20,000/- and mobile phone and were acquitted vide judgment dated 15.04.2014 on account of compromise and that the prosecution had not sup