Insufficient evidence and jurisdictional errors led to the acquittal under IPC Section 498A.

1. This criminal revision arises out of the judgment dated 27-2-2006 delivered by Shri N.D. Tigala, 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Criminal Appeal No. 274/2005 whereby conviction of the applicants under S.498A read with S.34 of the IPC and the sentence of R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 300/- as awarded by Shri Kartikram, JMFC Raipur in Criminal Case No. 308/2001 was affirmed.

2. It is not disputed that Shakun Chandrakar was married to applicant No. 4 Rajesh Chandrakar on 5-5-2001. Their matrimonial home was at Chuikhadan. The applicant No. 3 Shyama Bai is the mother inlaw of Shakun Chandrakar. Applicant No. 2 Mohan Chandrakar is the brother of applicant No. 4 Rajesh Chandrakar and applicant No. 1 Kumari Chandrakar is the wife of applicant No. 2.

3. Brief facts are that Shakun Chandrakar lodged FIR on 18-10-2001 in Mahila Police Station that on her wedding night her husband applicant No. 4 mentally tortured her by saying that he did brother's choice. Thereafter, the applicants started harassing Shakun Bai of Chuikhadan on account of demand for money, a golden chain and a vehicle. After facing persistent harassment for a period of one and half months of her matrimonial home at the hands of the applicants. Shakun Bai returned to her maternal home. Thereafter, she again returned after a period of 2-4 days to her matrimonial home. After the Teeja festival she lived with the applicant No. 4 at Ramsagar Para, Raipur where she was persistently harassed by all the applicants on account of demand for dowry. On 15th August her husband, the applicant No. 4, chased her while attempting to assault her by an axe due to which she returned to her maternal home again. On 18-10-2001 at about 9.00 A.M. when she went to her matrimonial home for bringing her sewing machine at Ramsagar Para, Raipur, Mohan, the applicant No. 2 caught hold of her hand and his wife, applicant No. 1, quarrelled with her.

4. After completion of investigation the applicants were prosecuted under S.498A of the IPC. The applicants abjured their guilt, pleaded false implication and led no evidence in defence. The prosecution examined Shakun Chandrakar PW 1, her mother Champa Bai as PW 2, her brother Umesh as PW 3 and Rakesh, a friend of Umesh as PW 4. Relying upon the evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the applicants as aforesaid in paragraph 1. On appeal, conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Judge was affirmed.

5. Shri Y. C. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants while assailing the impugned judgment made three fold submission in this revision. Firstly, he contended that there was absolutely no evidence against Mohan, applicant No. 2 who was the brother of the applicant No. 4. Secondly, it was contended that mere omnibus allegations against the applicants Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were not sufficient to hold the applicants guilty under S.498A read with S.34 of the IPC. Lastly, it was submitted that the learned trial Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the criminal case since cruelty as alleged, was committed at Chuikhadan which was beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court at Raipur. Reliance was placed in Ramesh v. State of Tamil Nadu , AIR 2005 SC 1989 : 2005 CriLJ 1732 and Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police, Chennai , 2004 AIR SCW 4788 : 2004 CriLJ 4180. On the other hand, Shri Parag Katecha, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has argued in support of the impugned judgment while contending that there is clinching evidence to prove the guilt of the applicants for an offence under S.498A read with S.34 of the IPC and since