Full Judgment
S.C. Pandey, J.
1. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 5.11.1999 delivered by 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahdol in Criminal Appeal No. 157/96 arising out of judgment dated 30.11.1996 delivered by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Budhar in Criminal Case No. 147/94.
2. The applicant has been convicted by both the Courts below under Section 498A, I.P.C. He has been sentenced to R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 600/- has been imposed upon him; in default of payment of fine, he is required to undergo a further sentence of 3 months' R.I.
3. The facts of this case are that the complainant Rojleen Khan is the wife of the applicant. She lodged an FIR against the applicant on 27.2.1994 stating that she was married to the applicant on 17th of December, 1980. After marriage the complainant lived with the applicant and had given birth to two daughters. It was alleged in the FIR that the applicant had begun to treat the complainant with cruelty during the subsistence of marriage and had threatened her to throw her out of the house. It was further alleged that the applicant had remarried. The police after recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses and finding that a case under Section 498A, I.P.C. has been established filed a charge sheet.
4. After filing of the charge sheet, the learned Trial Magistrate framed a charge under Section 498A, I.P.C. The applicant denied the allegations made against him and claimed to be tried. The statement of the applicant under Section 313, Cr.P.C. was to the effect that he has been falsely implicated.
5. The learned Trial Magistrate after considering the evidence on record relied on the evidence of Rojleen Khan (P.W. 1), her two daughters P.W. 5 Smita Khan and P.W. 6 Zenifer Khan for convicting the applicant under Section 498A, I.P.C. The finding recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate has been confirmed in criminal appeal.
6. In this revision, learned Counsel for the applicant has taken me through the F.I.R. lodged by Smt. Rojleen Khan. In the light of the statement made by her, it was argued that statement of Smt. Rojleen Khan does not disclose that the harassment caused to her was of such nature which is covered by Section 498A of I.P.C. Unfortunately for the applicant what was not said in the examinatiorv-in-chief by Smt. Rojleen Khan was brought out on record by inapt cross-examination by the defence. The statement made by Smt. Rojleen Khan in her examination-in-chief was innocuous, but in cross-examination, it was brought out by the learned Counsel for the defence that after 3 to 4 years of marriage, the harassment by the applicant began and it is clear from her statement that she was being treated cruelly on every step of life. There was a constant harassment and it was alleged that in the year 1989 during a quarrel, a one rupee note was got torn, the applicant instead of pacifying the quarrel, had gone to the police station to lodge a report against his wife. Thereafter it was said that she was taken to Jabalpur and was required to sign a document in Urdu and she was told that she has been converted into Muslim religion. She was also told that she had become Muslim and, therefore, she must read Kalma as per Muslim religion so that she may be recognized as a Muslim. She refused to do so. It is also said that a document of divorce was also got signed in Urdu. These are some of the salient features of her cross-examination which show the cruel treatment given to her. It is not necessary to consider her evidence in any detail in view of the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Courts below. Suffice it to say that the testimony of this witness is corroborated by her two daughters Smita Khan (P.W. 5) and Zenifer Khan (P.W. 6). The very fact that they had deposed against their father lends credibility to their statements. Apart from that further corroboration can be found from the evidence of father of complainant Imanuel (P.W. 2) and his wife Prabhawati Imanuel (P.W. 3). Madan Singh (P.W. 4) who is an independent witness and was Sarpanch of Chachat has also supported the case of the prosecution. Suffice it to say, therefore, that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are neither perverse nor in any way illegal calling for an interference in this revision.
7. However, the learned Counsel for the applicant relied on a decision rendered by this Court in the matter of Ram Swarup v. State of M.P., reported in 2000 (1) C.Cr.J. 26 (MP). In that case the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that for proving cruelty under Section 498A, I.P.C, mere beating on part of the husband would not be enough. The nature of beating must be likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health whether mental or physical. In other words, occasional beating may not be sufficient for proving cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of I.P.C. The continuous harassment for a considerable period of time may be seen in different light because it may cause danger to the health of the woman either mental or physical. This is one of those cases where this Court can draw an inference that danger was caused to the health of the woman on account of continuous harassment mental as well as physical. .
8. The learned Courts below were right in coming to the conclusion that the applicant is liable to be punished under Section 498A of I.P.C. The revision has no force. It is dismissed.