Insufficient evidence regarding dowry demands and cruelty led to the acquittal of the accused under Section 498A IPC, emphasizing the need for corroborative testimony.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Prasad, J.

This Criminal Revision Application has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Judgment dated 23.09.2020, passed by Sri Syed Saleem Fatmi, Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 2019, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge- XII, Dhanbad has dismissed the Criminal Appeal affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29th July, 2019, passed by Ms. Ritu Kujur, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 1666/2010 holding the petitioner guilty under Section 498 A of the I.P.C. and thereby sentencing him to undergo S.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 498 A of the I.P.C. and in case of default in payment of fine the petitioner was directed to additional S.I. for two months.

2. The Case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant’s marriage was solemnized in accordance with Hindu Customs with appellant Sumanto Chatterjee on 10.05.2005. The parents of the complainant was compelled to give to accused Rs.1,70,000/- cash and 50,000/- for Hero Honda motor cycle, other house hold articles, furniture and jewellery of gold and silver were given at the time of marriage. After marriage, the complainant went to her Sasural and started leading her matrimonial life and gave birth to a female child on 10.01.2007. Thereafter behavior of accused persons changed in various ways. Complainant was thereafter asked by accused persons to bring money for maintenance of the child. She was compelled to demand Rs. 10,000/- per month and in between the only brother of the complainant died on 09.04.2009 in an accident then the accused persons started torturing the complainant mercilessly for Rs. 2 lacs for constructing home in order to grab all the properties of the complainant’s parent as there is none in the family of the complainant’s parents. It is further stated that when the demand was not fulfilled by the parents of complainant then accused persons on 02.06.2010 ousted her along with the child from her Sasural after brutally assaulting her and the complainant anyhow came to her Maika. It is further stated that complainant told about the fact then father of the complainant agreed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month, but inspite of that the accused persons started demanding Rupees Two lacs for construction of the house besides Rs.10,000/- and the father of the complainant denied to fulfill the demand of Rupees Two lacs, then accused persons threatened the complainant that if she wanted to live in her Sasural, she had to bring the same from her parents and forcibly took away the child of the complainant. Thereafter, complaint case was filed by the complainant against the husband and mother-in-law of the complainant.

The Court below, after conducting inquiry took cognizance against the husband and mother-in-law of the complainant under Section 498 A/406 of the I.P.C. and Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Heard Mr. Sharad Kaushal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, learned counsel for the complainant.

4. Mr. Sharad Kaushal, learned counsel for the petitioner, assisted by Ms. Rishi Bharti, learned counsel submits that the impugned judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the learned Co