Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 552 (UTT)

MAZHAR ALAM v. SIRAJUDDIN

2012-09-07

BARIN GHOSH

body2012
JUDGMENT : Barin Ghosh, J. Criminal Revision No. 82 of 2003 is by the informant, who deposed as P.W. 1. According to the First Information Report, which resulted in filing of a charge-sheet the husband of the sister of P.W. 1, who deposed as P.W. 2, and members of his family harassed P.W. 2 with a view to coerce her and P.W. 1 to meet unlawful demand of dowry. It was also alleged that P.W. 2 was assaulted in such a manner that she suffered grave injury. In the circumstances, in the charge-sheet, it was alleged that the respondents in Criminal Revision No. 82 of 2003 and the revisionist in Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2003 are guilty of offences punishable u/s 498A and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, as also of those punishable under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Trial Court framed charges in line, as was suggested in the charge-sheet. The Trial Court also convicted respondents in Criminal Revision No. 82 of 2003 and the revisionist in Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2003 for offences punishable under the said sections. On appeal, conviction against the respondents in Criminal Revision No. 82 of 2003 has been set aside, but conviction against the revisionist in Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2003 has been upheld. The reason for allowing the appeal in favour of the respondents in Criminal Revision No. 82 of 2003 is absence of evidence to prove the ingredients of those sections. The reason for upholding the judgment against the revisionist in Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2003 is that he being the husband of P.W. 2, on fulfillment of the dowry demand, revisionist in Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2003 would have got the motorcycle. 2. In the circumstances, while P.W. 1 has filed Criminal Revision No. 82 of 2003 challenging that part of the judgment of the appellate Court, by which, the judgment of the Trial Court, insofar as the respondents to the said revision are concerned, has been set aside; revisionist in Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2003 has challenged that part of the judgment of the appellate Court, by which, conviction against him has been upheld. 3. In the circumstances, both the Revision Applications are heard together. 4. 3. In the circumstances, both the Revision Applications are heard together. 4. The fact remains, to which there appears to be no dispute, that the First Information Report was lodged after about 71/2 years of marriage of P.W. 2 with the revisionist in Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2003. The fact also remains that, out of the wedlock, two female children were born. The prosecution story was sought to be established by the evidence tendered through P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, as also the doctor, who medically examined P.W. 2. The doctor found no injury on P.W. 2 of any grave nature. The doctor also found no superficial injury on any of the eyes of P.W. 2. Therefore, there was no evidence of causing any injury to P.W. 2. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 deposed as regards unlawful demand of motorcycle, etc. They did not depose that those demands were met. There is, however, no evidence at all pertaining to harassment with a view to coerce for meeting such demand. Taking those into account, the appellate Court exonerated the respondents in Criminal Revision No. 82 of 2003 of the charges framed under Sections 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. A mere demand for dowry is punishable under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. There was assertion by P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 that such demands were made. Those assertions were not supported by unimpeachable evidence. The contemporaneous actions of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 also did not suggest that there was such a demand. No attempt, at the same time, was made to establish that P.W. 2 had means to fulfil such demands. Taking those into account the appellate Court also exonerated the respondents in Criminal Revision No. 82 of 2003 of the charge framed under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 6. If there was one set of evidence and if, on the basis of such set of evidence, respondents in Criminal Revision No. 82 of 2003 were exonerated; there was no just reason to uphold the conviction of the revisionist in Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2003 on the basis of the self-same evidence. 7. In the circumstances, Criminal Revision No. 82 of 2003 is dismissed and Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2003 is allowed. 7. In the circumstances, Criminal Revision No. 82 of 2003 is dismissed and Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2003 is allowed. Accordingly, the conviction of the revisionist in Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2003, upheld by the appellate Court, is set aside together with the conviction of the revisionist in Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2003, as recorded by the Trial Court. Revisionist in Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2003 is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties are discharged. He need not surrender. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Court below along with the Lower Court Records.