JUDGMENT
A.K. Awasthy, J.
1. Appellant/State has filed the appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 30.10.1993 in Criminal Case No. 21/1985 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Biaora Rajgarh of acquitting the respondent accused from the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 324/34 and 323/34 of the IPC and for the offence punishable under Section 4 of Prevention of Dowry Act.
2. The admitted facts of the case are that the marriage of complainant Seema (P.W. 2) was performed with accused Narendra on 6.5.1983 and accused Shyamlal and Sushila are the parents of accused Narendra, It is common ground that on the day of alleged incident 11.11.1984 the complainant Seema {P.W, 2) was staying in her matrimonial house with the accused person.
3. The prosecution case is that on 11.11.1984 Ramcharan (P.W. 1) has lodged the written report in the Police Station Biaora that he is a Teacher in the school and the marriage of his daughter was solemnized about 10 months back with accused Narendra and after the marriage, accused Narendra and his parents are harassing his daughter to fulfil their demand of Rs. 20,000/- in the dowry and that on 9.11.1984 his wife Shanta Sharma (P.W. 3) went to the house of the accused to see her daughter and saw that there were several injuries on the body of Seema (P.W. 2) and that her daughter complained that she should be taken away from the house otherwise the accused persons will kill her for the dowry. The complainant Seema (P.W. 2) was sent for the medical examination to Civil Hospital Biora where Dr. R.K. Choure (P.W. 4) conducted her medical examination and found 5 injuries on her body and which were caused by hard and blunt object within the period of 2 days and the doctor advised the X-ray of the chest, confirmed the fracture. After the investigation, the Police has filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons on 8.1.1985 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class-Biaora for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 324/34 of the IPC.
4. The accused persons have abjured the guilt and they have denied the statement of the prosecution witnesses under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The accused persons have pleaded false implication and they have not led any evidence in their defence.
5. The prosecution has examined Ramcharan (P.W. 1), complainant Seema (P.W. 2), Shanta Sharma (P.W. 3) and Dr. R.K. Choure (P.W. 4). The learned Trial Court has held that there is a variation in the, statement of the complainant in her medical report and the accused persons were acquitted by the learned Trial Court.
6. The appellant has assailed the finding of the learned Trial Court on the ground that the learned Trial Court has erred in rejecting the statement of the complainant Seema (P.W. 2) and her parents and the appellant should be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC as the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons.
7. Seema (P.W. 2) has stated that when she went third time to her matrimonial house, the accused persons asked her to bring the amount of Rs. 20,000/- from her parents and they also threatened her to kill her if their demand is not fulfilled. Seema (P.W. 2) has further stated that her mother-in-law assaulted her with lathi and caused the injury on her head and other part of the body. She has further stated that her husband caused her the burn injury. Seema (P.W. 2) has stated that she wrote the letter to her mother and when her mother came to see her in the house, the accused persons have ousted her mother from the house. It is further stated by Seema (P.W. 2) that the Police had sent her for medical examination and she was examined for her injury in the Civil Hospital. Seema (P.W. 2) is teaching in the school and the accused persons have not disclosed any reason of her giving the false statement against them. In the long and searching cross-examination of Seema (P.W. 2) the facts to discredit her statement were not brought out and there is nothing to create the doubt in the veracity of her testimony.
8. Dr. R.K. Choure (P.W. 4) has stated that on 11.11.1984 he was posted as an Assistant Civil Surgeon in Government Hospital, Biaora and Seema (P.W. 2) aged about 21 years was examined by him and he has found the following injuries caused by hard and blunt object within 2 days of her examination.
(1) Lacerated wound on dorsum of R. foot, About 4″ from the tip of big toe l”x1/2″x1/2″ bleeding.
(2) Wounds+2 in No. 1/2″x1/2″ scab and on medial mellowest R. ankle joint.
(3) Wound 2″ x 1″ scab and on ulnas border of R. forearm 2″ from elbow joint.
(4) Wound 1/2″ x1/2″ scab and on 2″: behind R ant. sip iliac spine.
(5) H/o Abrasion and on the back 3″ away from midline: 3″ below the inj. angle of R scapular size 1″x1/2″.
(6) Swelling on scalp 3″ above the occipital 2″x2″.
9. The presence of the several injuries on the body of Seema (P.W. 2) which are caused by hard and blunt object lends the valuable support to the story of the prosecution.
10. Ramcharan (P.W. 1) has stated that his wife has informed him that their daughter Seema (P.W. 2) is in critical condition in her matrimonial house and the Ex. P./1 report was lodged by him because the applicants used to demand the dowry and treat her daughter with cruelty to fulfil the demand. Ramcharan (P.W. 1) has not contradicted his earlier statement made under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. There is no exaggeration or contradiction or any circumstances to create the doubt in his testimony. The statement of Ramcharan (P.W. 1) is fully corroborated by the statement of his wife Shanta Sharma (P.W. 3). Shanta Sharma (P.W. 3) has stated that her daughter use to complain that the accused persons are ill-treating her and demand the amount of Rs. 20,000/-. Shanta Sharma (P.W. 3) has further stated that she received the letter of her daughter and when she went to the house of her daughter, she saw injuries on the body of her daughter and she told her that she was beaten by accused persons and her hand was burnt.
11. The learned Counsel for the respondent has held that Doctor has not reported the burn injury on the body of Seema (P.W. 2) and as such, the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the statement of the prosecution witnesses and acquitted the accused. The absence of the burn injury is not such a factor which can totally make the case of the prosecution doubtful. The complainant had the injury on the occipital region and other part of her body. In the cross-examination of Dr. R.K. Choure (P.W. 4) it was not suggested that the injury on the body of the complainant were not possible by hot iron rod. In my considered opinion, the learned Trial Court has quarely erred in rejecting the consistent and credible statement of Ramcharan (P.W. 1), Seema (P.W. 2), Shanta Sharma (P.W. 3). The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant has harassed the complainant Seema (P.W. 2) to fulfil their demand of dowry. The offence under Section 498A is proved against the respondent accused.
12. The incident is more than 19 years old. Consequently, it will not serve any purpose to send the accused persons to undergo the jail sentence. The fine will meet the ends of justice.
13. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the respondent accused are found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and they are convicted and sentenced till arising of the Court and each to pay the fine of Rs. 10,000/-, 5,000/- (five thousand) and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for 1-1 month.