The judgment establishes the importance of addressing dowry harassment and cruelty, the subjective evaluation of evidence, and the need for a robust common sense in determining the degree of probability.

S.P. Khare, J.

1. Appellants Ramkishan, Ramesh and Suresh have been convicted under Section 498A, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to a fine of Rs. 1,500/- each. Appellant Suresh has also been -convicted under Section 324, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. Appellants Ramkishan, Ramesh, Meera Jain, and Pinki have been convicted under Section 324/34, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years each.

2. Sunita (P.W. 1) was married to accused Suresh Jain on 22.2.1995. The couple lived happily for about four months at Raipur. There was unhappihess in the next six months and Sunita (P.W. 1) left her matrimonial home with her father on 30.11.1995 and came back to her parental abode in Bhilai. Accused Ramkishan and Ramesh are elder brothers of Suresh. Accused Meera Jain is wife of accused Ramkishan and accused Pinki is his daughter.

3. The prosecution case is that after four months of the marriage the accused persons started harassing and ill-treating Sunita (P.W. 1). They asked her to bring a Yamaha motor-cycle and a colour T. V. as dowry. They also asked her to bring Rs. 40,000/- from her father so that her husband may commence cloth business with that money. Sunita (P.W. 1) and her father Sajjan Agrawal (P.W. 3) expressed their inability to meet such a demand. Thereafter the accused persons started torturing Sunita (P.W.I). They attempted to hang her, administer calmpose tablets to her and her husband cut arteries of her both the hands near the wrist joint with a blade. These injuries started bleeding. At that time accused Ramesh and Ramkishan had caught hold of her hands and accused Meera Jain and Pinki were holding her legs. Her husband uttered that she would die on account of bleeding from these arteries. The incident of cutting of the arteries is of 30.11.1995. Ori the same day her father reached there and brought her from Raipur to Bhilai. She was treated by Dr. D. Mahapatro (P.W. 6) for the injuries which she had sustained in her hand

3. Sunita (P.W.I) lodged the F.I.R. at Raipur Police Station on 11.12.1995 at 2.30 p.m. She was sent for medical examination. She had written two letters (Ex. P/2A and Ex. P/2B) from Raipur to her father complaining the harrassment to which she was being subjected by her husband and the persons related to him.

4. The accused persons pleaded not guilty. Their defence is that Sunita (P.W. 1) and her father are trying to black-mail them. They never demanded any dowry or money. They never harassed or ill-treated Sunita (P.W.I).

5. The Trial Court after an exhaustive and critical analysis of the evidence on record held that Sunita (P.W. 2) was subjected to cruelty by appellants Ramkishan, Ramesh and Suresh and all the appellants had formed common intention to cause hurt to her and in furtherance of their common intention Suresh caused injuries to Sunita (P.W. 1). In this appeal it has been argued that the charges against the appellants are not established beyond reasonable doubt; there is unusual delay in lodging the F.I.R. (Ex. P/l); there is no independent corroboration of the testimony of Sunita (P.W. 1); she has exaggerated her version; the two letters which are said to have been written by her are forged and the injuries which are said to have been sustained by her on her wrist joints were in all probability self-inflicted.

6. The learned Counsel for both the sides have been heard and the evidence on record has been carefully scrutinised by this Court. Sunita (P.W. 1) has deposed that her Jeth Ramkishan after four months of her marriage expressed dissatisfaction over the dowry brought by her. He complained to her that the dowry which was agreed has not been given. He asked her to prevail upon her father to give Yamaha motor-cycle and a colour T.V. as dowry. He also asked her to bring Rs. 40,000/- so that her husband may start cloth business. She replied that her father would not be able to meet such demands. Thereafter