Lack of credible evidence supporting allegations of harassment for dowry under Section 498A of IPC leads to the acquittal of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.06.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag in S.T. No. 19 of 2006, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 498A of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as IPC) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of one and a half year and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, she has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment of two months.

2. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of appeal are, that marriage of the deceased Bhawna was solemnized with co-accused Vinod Singh (acquitted in Sessions Trial) on 14.10.2004. A First Information Report (registered as Case Crime No. 467/2006) was lodged by PW-1 Basanti Devi, step mother of deceased Bhawna at P.S. Rudraprayag, District Rudraprayag under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC against the present appellant/convict and Vinod Singh and Bharat Singh, husband and father-in-law of deceased, respectively with the allegations that the deceased was not having any child after two years of the marriage and the appellant/convict and other accused persons used to harass her and had made her life miserable for demand of dowry; that on 04.10.2006, they got the information that her daughter Bhavna has committed suicide by hanging herself.

3. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant/convict and other co-accused persons under Sections 498A and 304B IPC; On 21.12.2006, charges were framed against the appellant/convict and other accused persons under the same Sections i.e. 498A and 304B of IPC.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses, namely, PW-1 Smt. Basanti Devi (step mother of deceased); PW-2 Surni Devi, (real mother of deceased); PW-3 Bhajman Singh (real brother of deceased); PW-4 Sudama Devi (grandmother); PW-5 Kunwari Devi, parental aunt of deceased ¼rkbZ½; PW-6 Udai Singh (real elder brother of deceased); PW-7 Rakesh Singh (neighbour of deceased); PW-8 Jaswant Singh Rautela (father of deceased); PW-9 Dr. Manendra Singh Bhandari (Medical officer, who conducted postmortem on the body of deceased); PW-10 Constable CP Pancham Singh Butola (FIR and GD Writer); PW-11 SI Payare Lal (who conducted initial investigation) and PW-12 Ashadhu Lal Arya, Deputy S.P. (who finally filed the charge sheet in the Court).

5. After hearing the parties and on perusal of evidence led by the prosecution, trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant/convict, as above.

6. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellant/convict and the learned State Counsel as well as perused the entire record.

7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/convict would submit that there is no allegation, whatsoever, against the appellant/convict and the Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment, without proper appraisal of evidence, and the same is liable to be set aside.

8. He would further submit that PW-3 Bhajman Singh, real brother of the deceased, PW-4 Sudama Devi, real grandmother of the deceased; PW-5 Kunwari Devi, real paternal aunt ¼rkbZ½ of the deceased, PW-7 Rakesh Singh, neighbour of the deceased and PW-8 Jaswant Singh Rautela, father of the deceased have specifically stated in their statements recorded before the trial court that there was no demand of dowry by the appellant/convict. He would further submit that the allegations were levelled by PW-1 Smt. Basanti Devi, PW-2 Sunri Devi and PW-6 Udai Singh that there was harassment meted out to the deceased at the hands of the appellant/convict for demand of dowry of Rs. 10,000/- and a gas stove but these witness have not stated any date of incident of demand by the appellant/convict.

9. He would further submit that even if it is presumed for the sake of arguments that there was any demand by the appellant/convict, in that eventuality also, it would not fall within the ambit of Cruelty as defined in clause (a) of Expla