Court finds that conviction under Section 498-A was unsustainable due to inconsistent testimonies and lack of corroboration, leading to the appeal's success.

JUDGMENT :

SHAILENDRA SINGH, J.

The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.12.2013, passed by the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhpura, in Sessions Trial Case No. 338 of 2012 / G.R. No. 543 of 2011, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (in short, “IPC”) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the said offence.

Prosecution Story

2. The substance of the prosecution case, as emerging from the complaint filed by the complainant, is as follows:

The complainant’s marriage was solemnized with the appellant on 16.07.2010, and at the time of marriage her parents gifted her ornaments and cash amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-. After marriage, she went to her matrimonial home (sasural) and lived there for about one month, whereafter she returned to her parental home (naihar). Subsequently, she was brought back to her sasural by the appellant in the month of January, 2011, and since then she started residing there. In the meantime, the appellant, his father, mother, two brothers-in-law namely Sonu Sao and Subodh Sao, sister-in-law Lalita Devi, and the husband of the said sister-in- law started assaulting her on account of demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- and a refrigerator. The complainant further alleged that when such demand was made, she informed her in-laws that her parents had already spent a substantial amount in her marriage and that she was unable to fulfil their demand. Due to her refusal, all the accused persons allegedly started assaulting her, stopped providing her food, and confined her in a room. The said torture continued for some time, which she endured. The complainant further alleged that on 18.06.2011, at about 7:00 A.M., all the accused persons attempted to kill her by trying to set her on fire. She raised an alarm, and upon hearing her cries, the neighbours residing in the same mohalla gathered at the spot. Thereafter, she managed to escape from the clutches of the accused persons and went to Sheikhpura Civil Court, where her father was working, and narrated the entire incident to him. Thereafter, her father went alone to the house of the accused to complain about their conduct, but the accused remained adamant in their demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- and a refrigerator and told him that they would keep the complainant in their house only upon fulfilment of the said demand. Her father was abused and ousted by the in-laws. Subsequently, the complainant was brought by her father to her parental home, and the entire incident was narrated to the relatives.

3. The complainant further alleged that on 27.06.2011, her father again went to the house of the accused along with Sarju Sao, Ram Autar Sao, Sarwan Sao, and Satyanarayan Sao to make understand the accused, but they did not agree. The accused did not even allow them to sit in the house and remained adamant in their demand. Ultimately, her father and his companions returned. Thereafter, on 28.06.2011, they went to Sheikhpura Police Station to lodge an FIR, but the S.H.O. did not take any action and advised them to approach the Court. Consequently, the complainant filed a complaint, which was forwarded to the police for investigation.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a formal FIR bearing Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 180 of 2011 was registered for the offences under Sections 3 41, 498-A, 307 and 504 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (in short, “D.P. Act”) against the appellant and five others, w