ISt^'HEHIGHGOUKrOPJUEBCATUREOFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR V ••,—— CRIMINALREVISION N0.1^0 /2006 1) Kuinari Chaadrakar, W/o Mohan Chandrakar, Aged about- 40years, Mohan Kumar Chandrakar S/o F'unau Chandrakar Aged about- 42 years Shyaina Bai W/o Punau Ram Chandrakar Aged about-60 years, Rajesh Chandrakar S/o I>unau Chandrakar Aged about- 28 years ^ RESPONDENT ss 'RF,Pl AU are R/o Raiasagar Para, Raipur.District RaipurfC.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through: Station House Officer, Police Station- Mahila Police Station, RaipTir Distt- Raipur (C.G.) MEMO OF REVISION UNDER SECTION 39TREAD WITH SECTION 401 OF CRPC AGAINST CONVICTION 'V. f,awa l';IM:l HIi.i •<;;^fl: ij!fli! K; K HIGHCOURT OF 6HHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR Cr, Revision No. 151/2006 KumariChandFakarandthreeothers Vs. State of Cli-s--"•--- M Post for Orders :13.07.2006 Sd-/ Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge :' :4 •^ Ns-E •Yi. ^ ^Ssl^i^lfeii^^^^l^ T^^:^ r ^'- -' ^rj .T;^'^.:-'^^^lt^^i¥^}^^^lfc^:^^^: ,'"lii?''i: •BliftllffiStf^ •IIIIIIIIBI Sfi;t!!!:!| w BBi:!!:reail Kli1i i;€Ii;f'!n^!'.>F;%IK:' II !j f «'.N: t iS MI6H COURT OF CNHATTtS&^RH AT BILASPUR Before: Hon'ble Shri Justic®tiillp Raosaheb &eshmukh Criminal RwisionNo. 150/2006 Kumari Chandrakarand three others x State of Chhattisgarh Shri Y.c.5harma, Counsel withShri V. Rdthorefor theappticants. Shr-i Parag Kotecha, P.L. for the Stcrte. OR & E R (Pas%d on this l^sNiay of July 2006) This criminal revision arises out of tiie judgment dated 27.2.2006 delivered by Shri N.&.Tigala, 9th Additional Sessions Jud9e, Raipur in Criminal Appeal No.274/2005 whereby conviction of the dpplicants under Section498-A read with 5ectipri 34 of the I.P.G. and the sentence of R.I. forsix monthsondafine of Rs.300/-as awarded by Shri Kairtikram, J.M.F.C. Raipur in Criminal Case No.308/2001 was affirmed. 2. It is not disputed that Shdkun Chandrako.r was married to opplicant No.4-Rajesh Chondrakaron 5.5.2001. Their inatrimonial home was at Chuikhadan. The opplicant No.S-Shyama Bai is the mother-in-law of Shakun Chandrokar. Applicant No.Z-AAohan .l':l'^,.:.:-;::\-'._" . \.; '. •, ChcM'idrakar is the brotherof cpplicont No.4-Rajesh Chandrakar cnd applicouitNo.l-Kumdri Chondrakar isthe wife of oppticant No.2. 3. Brief facts are -tfeat Shakun Chwidrakar lod9ed F.I.R. on 18.10.2001 in Mdhila Police S'tation'that on her wedding njght her I ^-' '' ' ': ';'~:H.i^"fc;1^ husband cpplicont No^ m^ntany tortured her by saying tha!)' he.d^ ' "..^ swu i.r !H ilffil!;ltfj II leii' 1.^ :11 JlM' ! ^brother's choice. TherecAter, the applicahts stoyted hapassing Shakun Bai at Chuikhadan on account of demand for money, a golden chain and avehicle. After faclngpersistentharassmentforapet'iod of one and half months at hei? matrimonial home crt- the hands of the applicants, Shakun Bai returned to her maternal home. Thereafter, she again retumed after a period of 2 - 4 days to her matrimonial ^- home. Aftei* the Tee^i festival ,^ie tived wi'th ttie applicoint No.4 at Ramsagar Para, Raipur where she'was persistently harassed byali 1+ie opplicants on account of demond for dowry. On 15t August her husband, the applicant no.4, chased ter while attempting to assault her by an ou<e dye 16 which die returned to her maternal home agdin. On 18.10.2001 atttbout9.QO A.M. whenshewent to her matrimonial home for bringing hei* sewing machine at Ramsagar Para, Raipur, AAohcm, the applictmt No.2 ccught hold of her hand and his wife, opplicant No.l, qyotf'relled with her. 4. After completion of mvestigation the applicants were prosecuted under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. The appliconts abjured their guilt, pleaded false intpljcation and led no evidence in defence. The prosecution examined Shakun Chandrakar P.W.l, her mother Champa Bai as P.W.2, her brother Umesh as P.W.3 and Rakesh,a friend of Umesh as P.W.4. Relying upon the evidence led by •ri'ie prosecution, the leamed tr-ial Judge convicted and sentenced the opplicomts as aforesaid in parograph 1.. On <ypeal, convictjon <md sentence aurorded bythe learneS^ial Judgewosc^irmed 5. Shri y.G.Shamna, learned counset for the applicants white assailing -the impugned judgnient moKte three-fold submission ^in this revision. Firstty, he contended that there was absolutely no evidence ,rf't':':'. '• :.•'.' . :::-'. n' ';-^"* ogainst Mohan, cpplicantj^o.ywho v^ the bro^er of The c^pti NoA Secondly, jt was contended that mere onwnbus alle^tt'ions]. :lill ;-!' :Xii VK!sWU:E ^J^:':^,-i\;i.:^^i:' ;"i: ^ ir:i! against the applicants No.1,^3 <& 4 were not sufficienl' to hold the applicouits guilty undep Section 498-A read with Section 34of the I.P.C. Lastly, it was submitted that the learned trial Court did not have jurisdictibn to hear the-criminal cose since cruelty-as alteged, was committed at Chuikhadon which was beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the triat Courf at,,,Raipur. Reliance was placed in Ramedf mdoltiersy. Stalv^f T<as/nilNaduA.I.K.20Q9 SC 1989 ond y, Alsraficwn Aif'tfi.^cvid o'riiei's v^ JfiWfscforpf Rofice^CJiennaranet omrterA.I.R. 2004 5CW 4788. On the other hand, Shri Parag Kotecha, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has argued in support of the impugned judgment while contending that there is clinching evidence to prove the guijtof the appliaants for <m offence under Section 498-A rettd with Section 34 of the I.P.C. iind since the evidence clearly revealsd that some par-t of the cruelty onttccount of demand for dowry wms also committed by the appticonts at ftamsagar Para, ftaipur, •the learned trial Court h<td jurisdiction to try the case. 6. 1-laving heard the rival aibmissions,! have perused •therecord of Criminal Gase No.308/2001. I shall first deql with the objection raised by the learned counsel for the opplicants as regards jurisdiction of tiie tridl Court to try the offence in question. Section 177 Cr.P.C. loys down that everyoffence shallordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Gourt within whose jurisdictjon it was committed. Section 178 Cr.P.C. further loys<down that when it is uncertain in <A-:.:-;'. • . . " '.••' • •• .. ' "'.. '•'•.:'.. '. which part of several local areas dn bffence was committed or where an offence wos comiriitted partly in one local area and partly in amother, or whereanoffepceisacontinuingpneand continues tp^be committed in more local cyea?, than one, or where it consists of severalacts done in different'ISedl areas, it may be inguired intojw tried by a Court huving jur-isdiction over any of such locai art •^-^i^-•J-T^-^AA^"^^^'*^^^^'^^"^ ':S8l"l '^ raised by the learned coun^el for the opplicontsdoes not have any forceond is liable to be rejected. 7. Shakun Choridrakar P.W.I has stated that she was married to the applicant No 4-Rajesh Chandrakar on 5 May 2001 a-TChuikhactan and since that day she was residing ot Chuikhadan for a period of one fflonth. In paragraph 3 she hos slluted thtttafter her marriage her husband told her on the .weddingiftight that he did not like her since she was of her brother's choice. Thereafter, an omnibus allegation has been made t)y Shal<yn Chandrakar that her mother-in-law Shyama Bai; dpplicont No.3, sister-in-law Kumari Chandrakar, applicant No.l and her husband.applicont No.4 started bedting her cmd made demand pf a Car, golden chain o»id,fts.40,000/-as dowry. While making such sttrteiitent sh6 <lid rot disclose the exo^ date/time^ such a dem<^ wcs miide.^^^^ stated how and in what nWinne^Wa^sheit%a1^^<:mclwhe^^ such beating to OnybiOdyin tli^iiyicinity. She did not specifically stcrte that her brother-in-kiw A^bhari Kumdr Gliaridrdkar, applicant No.2 also used to beat her<r demandeddowry. - 8. In paragraph 9" Of her testimbny, Shakun Chomdrakar P.W.l has clearly stated that after hermarridge she was living at her matrimon'ial home in Chuikhackin. In paragraph 10 she has admitted that opplicant No.2-Mohon Chandrakar, her brother-in-law and applicant No.l-Kumari ehondrdkar, her sister-in-law used to live in A ' • : ! . • RamsagarPara, Raipur. It is thus fclear that Kumdri Chandrakar fltld Mohan Chondrtikar never lived with the applicant No.4-Raj^sh at Chuikhttdan i.e. the motriinonidl home df Shakun Chondmlwr.i Her testimony in pttratgraph 5 thqt a week before todging the F^.RKwhe!n| she. went to Ramsagou'; Para, .feupur"' for' bringing'her' sewingirrK|e|j||§J^|j|j ,<.„. Kumari Chandralwr and Mohon Chandrdkar cauqhf hol3 ofll'MIWK •y"]""H|gj|j|jgjgj 1! i H^i •>— tt;^? telGKi .ity.jpUDUiap D j.o +un<»3Duo dau^sswo^ o+ pasn ^OMiwnsDS^ J3i|4»i^. .--~): .lai.li p|04.1pDt|urO|DL|S'3UioL||BLMa|jDiy^a4;at. 6uiu.in4.au uo +01(4. ps+nts %.;'. ''!. : ^ 3ip g 4^®°^UI "ul^4M!nM3 +°'11° ^ ^!1 +°" P!P !^w^^^ P UDt|oyv asuis a|qisno|d aq o4.-dBaddi> +ou saop siaiLjaA D puo -/000'0fr'sy ^oj. puouisp B a>|oiu 04. pasn uoi|6^( puo i^Diun)) t.it>g DUii)^L|S-s4.uow|ddD 31)4. +i>t)+ AUOU114SS4. Ja|-| -^mop 50^03 p puo -/000'0'^"stl i0 puDUop o j.o 4.un033D uo^OL) ssojDt) 0+ pash 'un)|0t|g j.o pUDqsnt| at|+ •a'\ L|S3ioy -fr'PN 4.uD3!|ddo ®44-4.044. g i|dDj6Djpd ui pssodap +ou SRL| jD>|BJpuoL|3 un>|Di|s j,o ^ai|4.oui 'Z"/^'(j ipg DduiDt|3 +0k|4. a+ou 04. ^.uaui^ad osp s! 4.1 •uoi+o+s a3!|od ^,UD ui 4.jodaj Auu'-a>pui +ou pip aL|s aSDi.uoui ^31) .is+j.o si|4.uows^opou3daL|4.6ujjnp+l>44-PaW!*UPDSt'4s.tls®?nlwacllry-l-(:lrloP Auouii+sa+iai) sjapuajos|o jaxyMpuiovff wf>p>ug y ^npuos -av^ •Q^ •^MOp JOJ. pUDUIap C j.0 +Un0330 UO •ID»|DJpUDt)2 un>|Dt|s ssiu»4 pinoM 'UDpBk|>|ini|3 4.0 i|sarog-yot\j +uD3!|ddD av^. II+IM SA!| 4-ou p!p oi|m.n»|B.ipUDt|3Ut>i.|ow-z'o(s|.i.UDaiiddp ai|+ puo jt»|DJpuot|3 ijDtUn)|-i-o|\| +u»»!|ddo 3t|4. .(.oi+l- s|q!sno|d jxaaddo 4.ou saop +i •4lMOp SO •3+S a4/!9/0&W)^ Uap|o6 't|34.DM '6UIJ 'uret|3 uap|o6 '.i^oo^ 'Dj.og uaAiB poi) s+ua.ind jaq a6Du^pui j3L| w vovft: jiovpdpuavQ un>|Bt|s Aq ^i L|dDj6pJDd ui uoissiuipD 3i|4. j.o MaiA ui a|qisnc|d aq o^.ioaddo 4.0U sapp OS|D uo!4.o63||D sii|4. 'paujasuoo S! u!Bi|3 uap|o6 D ^o pUDiusp ai|4. so.fly, og -4.uno33o 4.01)4. uo j?4p3sswDtj jo Aauouu papuoiuap jo>|tMpu)oi|3 uoi|ow-2-o[\| +u!OM|ddo. puo J»)|D.lpuDi|3 ijouin^-'ro(s| +uD3!|ddo tup<j uoSnsuiog 4.0 4.01(4. atjats 4.ou pip 3i|s 'aouapiAa jai| ui ^ - 4.aA 'Aauoui ^o^ puouiap oj.o+unosoAuo passo.iDt|soM aL|S pojjsdi,|3j4M Buunp jndrog 'ojDd jDGDsuiOy 4.0 asnoi) 8i|+ ui pSAii ai|s s^}p g^ ^oj. 4.Bi|4. pai-w-"Bu poi| jD>|oJpu6i)3 un>]Di|S '••yrd •'34 "! ^Sno^iy •fi •apcui SDM uoi+oSsip ijons ou i-d'xg +^°d3J US++!-IM 34+ u' souis A^joMi-snj+un pa^apuaj si uai^ 04. swvpow 6wi»aes^ sAiS 04. pasry.a^ pup jst| pa+inDsso puD ^jDt| 9 'iM fl'MM :39 :iM]!"l •'^; I ;JX Ki ESI:!ffi;ll:t*l<BBS •5®':;:'i?:?SKKI •^^^.^^-'^ gillli ^s n I :! 1 li..;! f Rs.40,000/-,a Car and a g^den chain. However,here also Ae did not specifically narrate "that the husbond of Shakun Chondrakar i.e. applicant No.4-Rajesh used' to harass Shakun Bai on account of demond for dowry. The testimony of Champa Bai P.W.2 is thus rendered doubtful. It is also rendered wholly untrustworthy since Umesh, brother of Shakun Bai, has stated in paragroph 5 that when Shakun retumed to her maternal'liomesoonafterherweddingshedid not tetl about any demand for "dowry or any harassment but stated •that everything was normal. 11. Umesh P.W.3, brother of Shakun Chandrokar hasstated that on visiting Chuikhadan with Shakun Chandrakarsoonafterhermarriage, the applicont No.4-Rajesh had told him that he riiould ask his father to provide one Car,golden chain and Rs.40,QOO/- whereupon he had informed his father about the above mentioned demand but Radheshyam, father of Umesh, was not examinedas a prosecution witness. Even Shakun P.W.l did not stdte in her testimony that on visiting her matritnonial home with her brother Umesh, the applicant No.4-Rajesh had made the qbove mentioned demand of dowry. 12. The testimonyof Rakesh P.W.4also does not inspire confidence since he is a highly interested witness being a close friend of Umesh, the brother of Shakun Bai. His testimony thdt on visiting matrimonial hoineofShakunBaiwithUmesh.flpplicantNo.4-Rajeshdidnotpermit them tomeet Shakun is dlso rendered wholly unreliable sirice no such statement was made either by SKakun Chandrakar or by Umesh P.W.3. 13. So far! as •the^allegatjon reloting to the att'empted assoulton Shakun Chandrakar by theapplicantMo-4.by a Ton^M is concerned, it also does not inspire con'fiderice since Umesh P.W.3 cmd Rakesh P.WA '^••^..'.-...- . ...: .: L. : ::... ^; did not d^ose ony such eyent; Umesh P.W.3 also didnot s^^ fc- ; : : . . • •• !(? :.\:i. :1;" Shakun Chondrakar had Tolct anysuch incident-h) him. The'f'es1iino@ l^il II!!!!m ! ~\ •^ • 'of^ShoiKun that the applicarit chased her to osscMlt witti a Tangw is I'endered wholly unreliable since she has stated that ttiere was no I'eason for any such act on the-part of thedpplicant No.4-Rajesh. No witnesses of the locality in^ Chuikhadcn where the a^pliccurfi N6.4 resided were examined to corroborate this fact. If the oppliccait No.4 had chasedShakun CheBidrakar' to assault witha Twyia onher. •'^- .';. :.' .'...' ''''•'.'.' . ••:..[•' indepehdent cOrroboration coul^l|hove been oyailable. No lcogent jreason was put-fort+iiby Shakun Chandrakar or by Umesh for not jlodging a r^aort of 1tie oforesai<i incident for 7 doys. Neitt-ier dny injury is alle9ed to howe been coused pn the person of IShakun Chahdrakar norany in<tependeritwitness wosexamined. 14. The testimony of Shakun Chandrakar cleofly shows thot her parents had gjyeh Sofa, Cooler, goldeh chain, ring and /Man^a&uftisi etc.as dowry in marriage. Umesh P.W.3 has ttdmitted in parc^raph 4 that there was no defflaaid of dowry before marr'iage since it was not permitted by the custom prevalent in their community. His testimony that on retuming to her maternal home for the first tme after weddin9, Shakun Choridrakar did not complain of onylhingbut told •that everything <*o.s normal completely den'iolishes'the prosecution story of harassment of Shakun Chandrakar on account of demahd for dowr/soon after her marriage to thecppticont No.4. 15. The allegations made against l&imari Chandrakar and Mohan Chandrakar thusappear to be false since they did not live with Shakun Chandrakar at her matrimorilal home at Chuikhadon but lived in Ro.msagor Para, ftaipur'. The allegort'ions levelled against them in parogr'aph 5 of the testimonyof-Shakun Chandrakarrelating to holding of the tuftof her hair aaid assault by the applicant No.2 on nL- her asking for sewing machij'ife ttrealso rendered untrustworthy since fc':' the above allegotions did not find ptace in the written repwt. It #ws \ cannotbe ruledout that Shpkun Chandrakar levalted a fatse allegation against Ihe oppliccmts relating to demand for dowr/ since her testimony in paragraph-ll /that before her marriage the relatives of the opplicant No.4 hgd demanded dowry whjch was prewlent in their community is rendered false dye to the adrnission of Umesh P.W.3 in paragraph 4which hasbeen dealtwith in paragroph 14(supra). !.? ' 16. Httving thus considered tg^ evidence led by the prosecution in its entirety, I am of the considered opinion thatthe prosecution has miserably failed to prove the ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. a9ainst the applicants. Under Explanation (b) to Section 498-A I.P.C. cruelty means harassment of 1+ie woman where such hardssment is with aview to coercing her or ony person related to her to meet ony unlawful demond for any property or valuable security or is on dccount of failure by her or ony person related To her to meet such demand. The learned triat Judge ond also the Appellate Court failed to notice the glaring discrepoaicies in the evidence led by theprosecution which render it wholly unreliable. Both the courts below failed to notice that •rtie investigating- pfficer had also not been examined by the prosecution. No independent witness residing in the vicinity of the matrimonial home of Shakun Bai was exowined. They also did not notice -riiat the testimony of Shakun Bai P.W.l and Champa Bai P.W.2 relating to a demoind for dowry soon after marruge was clearly rendered unwortHy of crederi& in view 6f the admissjon made by Umesh in paragraph.s 4 & 5of his testimony. The gtaring discrepahcy regarding harassment by -tlie opplicants No.l & 2 at Ramsa9ar Pura, Raipurand the evidence of Shakun Bai was also ignored. Thus,there "'•,.'*. • . ! : [ • is no co9ent, legal or reliabfe^vidence on record to form the bosis for k^-^' convicting the applicont under Sectioh 498-A read with Sectien 34 QSSSSS^i,-- S»!wfS VS9KiBS: iiBSs^i®:r?'' •^ aspnf /-PS •3SD3 >13l|4.0 XUD ui pajintoj +ou 41 'II+IMLI+JO^. X+.iaqii +D 4.35 aq ||oi|s jD^pupupip i|S3fDy -y0(s| +U031|ddo pUO JD>pJpUDt|3UDl|OW-2-OtM 4.tB»3!|ddo 'JI»|(MpUDlp ijouiry-roM +ui»!|ddoSL|J. •yd'I 34+^0 frE uoi+oag Lf4.jM poaj V-86fr umvsag dapun ySwup aiy. j.o pat+mboo a,.io S4.uo3!|(ido siu. 'apisD +as; aao •(OOZ/80£"°N as3y) l'°"!""J3ill SOOZ'OT'T papp +uaui6pnr ai|4. os|o so SOOZ/^Z '°N |oaddy IBUIUIUS ui. passod 9002'30'ZZ papp +uaw6pnraiu. •pano||D si uotsiAa^ siv^. '+|rea^ aL|4. ui •^l •UOI.plpSljnr IDUOISIA3J 3t|4. j.0 asKiJaxa ui apiso +as sq 04. s3A.iasap puo +r j.o aaoj. aL|4. uo snoauojja A]4.S3J.!uoui puo mo| 04. ^iu+uoo A||OL|M sni|+ S! •3"<)"I frE uo^sg I^!M poaj y-86fr uo!+3aS li3Pun s+uwjiddo ^14). 40 UOJ+SIAUO^ •y^l