Purnima Shukla vs State of Chhattisgarh

T.P. Sharma, J.—By this revision, the applicant has challenged legality and propriety of the judgment dated 8.12.2009 passed by the 12th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Durg in Criminal Appeal No.132/07, reversing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.11.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg in Criminal Case No.210/06 whereby learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has convicted non-applicant No.2 under Sections 498-A/34 and 354 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years and fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for fifteen days on each count.

Acquittal of non-applicant No.2 is impugned on the ground that while acquitting him and allowing the appeal the appellate Court has not considered the proved fact against non-applicant No.2 sufficient for his conviction under Sections 498-A/34 and 354 of the I.P.C. and thereby committed illegality.

As per case of prosecution, present applicant daughter-in-law of non-applicant No.2 was married to son of non-applicant No.2 i.e. Deepak Kumar Shukla in the year 2000. Thereafter, present non-applicant No.2 used to demand dowry and used to commit torture and cruelty upon her and simultaneously also tried to outrage the modesty of his daughter - in - law i.e. present applicant. His behavior was abnormal and objectionable. On 20.2.2002 non-applicant No.2 tried to outrage her modesty when her mother-in-law and other two relatives were present in the house. Finally written complaint was lodged and matter was investigated. Finally charge sheet was filed. After providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg while acquitting other accused persons convicted and sentenced present non-applicant No.2 as aforementioned. Same was challenged before the appellate Court and vide judgment impugned the appellate Court has reversed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg.

I have heard leaned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment impugned, judgment of the trial Court and records of the Courts below.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that evidence adduced on behalf of the applicant is sufficient for drawing inference that present non-applicant No.2 has committed torture and cruelty upon her and also tried to outrage her modesty. His behavior was objectionable and indecent. Learned counsel further submits that the present applicant has written letters Ex.P/ 6 to P/8 regularly which supports the case of the applicant.

Learned counsel for non-applicant No.1/State opposed the revision

Learned counsel for non-applicant No.2 also opposes the revision and submits that present non-applicant No.2 is father-in-law of the applicant. Two unfold allegations have been made against non-applicant No.2 that he has committed torture and cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and simultaneously his behavior was indecent and objectionable and he has regularly tried to outrage the modesty of his daughter-in-law i.e. present applicant. These contradictory allegations and evidence itself are highly improbable and in absence of strict proof the appellate Court has rightly acquitted non-applicant No.2.

As per record, the present applicant is daughter-in-law of non-applicant No.2. As per written complaint and statement of the applicant, initially non-applicant No.2 has demanded dowry and has committed torture and cruelty upon her, even he used to say that he wish to press the neck of the applicant i.e. strangulate the neck, on the other hand, she has further deposed that behavior of non-applicant No.2 was indecent and even he used to sleep in her bed, he used to visit in her room and on 22.2.2002 when her mother-in-law and other two relatives were present in her house, non-applicant No.2 has tried to outrage her modesty in her room. Both the sets of allegations and evidence are contradictory to each other.

In order to prove the offence, prosecution is required to adduce natural and probable evidence. In case of unnatural and improbable evidence, strict proof is required. The present applicant has alleged and deposed against non-applicant No.2 unnatural, improbable and self contradictory statement. In these circumstances, present applicant and prosecution were under obligation to prove the aforesaid unnatural conduct of non-applicant No.2 and improbable evidence but prosecution has not adduced evidence to that quality and extent.

In absence of such degree of evidence the appellate Court has not committed any illegality in acquitting non-applicant No.2 warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

Consequently, the revision is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed.