The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove cruelty and harassment under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, and the reliance on specific evidence, including the complainant's testimony and written correspondence, to establish guilt.

A.K. Shrivastava, J.

1. This revision petition has been directed against the judgment passed by Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 50/96 partly allowing the appeal of applicants and modifying the judgment passed by Trial Court.

2. In brief the case of prosecution is that on 8-7-1992 Gomti Bai got married to applicant Sunil according to Hindu rites. After marriage when complainant came to her husband's house accused persons made demand of Rs. 15000/- and a scooter, they also often cause Marpeet to her. This fact was narrated by her to her parents when she did go to her parent's house. The parents of bride pacified accused persons by saying that their financial condition is poor but they did not agree and did not improve their behaviour towards complainant. According to the prosecution, complainant's husband Sunil happens come to the house after consuming liquor and thereafter he often cause Marpeet to his wife. He was insisting complainant that if his demand is not fulfilled, she would be killed. On 13-3-1993 applicants after causing Marpeet to complainant asked to leave their house and abandoned her. Thereafter complainant came to Hatta at the house of her parents and narrated the incident to them. On 22-3-1993 a report was lodged in police station Hatta.

3. On the basis of First Information Report, the investigating agency came in action and investigated the matter. After investigating the case, a charge sheet was submitted in the Trial Court.

4. The Trial Court framed charges punishable under section 498-A, Indian Penal Code against accused persons they were further charged under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. All the accused persons denied the charges and requested for trial.

5. The prosecution thereafter examined the witnesses. The Trial Court on the basis of evidence came to hold that accused persons committed the offence and the prosecution successfully proved the charges, as a result of which Trial Court convicted each applicant under section 498-A, Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment of six months each and fine Rs. 200/- each. The applicants were further convicted under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and each of them were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 6 months and fine Rs. 200/- each. The trial Court further directed that, in default of payment of fine, each accused shall further undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. Needless to emphasise trial Court rightly directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

6. The accused persons preferred an appeal and by impugned judgment the Appellate Court did not find charge under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act to be proved and eventually acquitted applicants from the said charge. However, the Appellate Court concurred with the view of the Trial Court so far as the conviction of applicants under section 498-A, Indian Penal Code is concerned and accordingly affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Trial Court. Hence this revision.

7. In this revision Shri S. C. Datt, learned senior counsel has submitted that prosecution failed to examine any independent witness and therefore learned two Courts below erred in convicting the applicants under section 498-A, Indian Penal Code. His further contention is that there is no dependable evidence of the witnesses who have been examined. It has also been putforth by him that earlier cruelsome behaviour and harassment towards complainant could not be taken into consideration for the simple reason that the said act was condoned by complainant since she came back to her husband's house and as per Learned Counsel, the present incident has not at all been proved as, whatever the statement have been stated by the witnesses are general statement and no inference from those statements can be drawn in regard to the cruelty, in support of his contention, learned senior counsel placed reliance on Nawal Kishore Jagannath Prasad vs. State of M.P., 1999 (1)