The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for substantial proof of dowry demands and assault leading to abortion in cases under Section 498-A of IPC.

The applicant has preferred the present revision against the judgment dated 28.8.2012 passed by the learned Additional Judge to the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in criminal appeal no.138/2011, whereby the judgment dated 15.12.2010 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Orchha, District Tikamgarh in criminal case no.507/02 was confirmed in which the respondents were acquitted from the charge of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.

2. The prosecution’s case, in short is that, the marriage of the applicant took place with the respondent No.1 on 29.4.1998. The parents of the applicant spent a huge amount in that marriage and various gifts like color T.V., Fridge and golden ornaments were also given. In second time of her visit to her husband’s house, the respondent demanded a washing machine and a cash of Rs.60,000/-. The applicant was being harassed for that reason. Initially, the respondent No.1 to 3 kept the applicant with comfort for at least one year but thereafter they harassed the applicant in various bad manner. Once, she was tried to be killed. The respondent No.2 left the gas regulator opened and thereafter, she was directed to go into the kitchen to prepare some tea. The respondent Kasturi thereafter lighted the fire with the help of a gas lighter however, no physical hurt was caused to the applicant. The incident was seen by Jaipal, nephew of the applicant. The applicant went to Orchha with the help of Jaipal and thereafter, again she was sent to the house of the respondents No.1 to 3. In June 2001, when the applicant was pregnant, she was assaulted by kicks and fists and also by the sticks on her abdomen. Jamuna Prasad brother of the applicant saved her and taken her to the medical campus of Jhansi and thereafter, the applicant was directed to get her abortion on the advice of the concerned doctor. A talk took place for the compromise, which could no succeed and thereafter, the complainant lodged a written FIR at Police Station Orchha. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the trial Court. During the pendency of the case, the applicant had moved an application for compromise on 13.7.2006, but that application was not accepted because the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC was not compoundable.

3. The respondent abjured their guilt. They took a plea that no harassment was done to the applicant and the respondents were falsely implicated in the case because the applicant wanted to take the divorce from her husband and her father was interested to get a huge compensation from the respondents. In defence, one Jamuna Prasad Yadav (DW-1) was examined.

4. After considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, the trial Court acquitted the respondents from the charges of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. In criminal appeal, the acquittal directed by the trial Court was confirmed.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court thought that a compromise took place between the parties and therefore, they ignored the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC was not compoundable and therefore, there was no effect of the compromise on the merits of the case and hence, both the Courts below have committed an error in acquitting the respondents. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the respondents No.1 to 3 may be convicted with an effective sentence for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.

7. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusal of the evidence adduced before the trial Court, the situation emerges that it is alleged by the applicant that there was a demand of dowry from the side of the respondents and they were demanding a sum of Rs. 60,000/- and a washing machine. In this context, the statement of Jagdish Prasad (PW-6) brother o