Full Judgment
Alok Singh, J.
1. Present revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C, has been filed challenging the conviction and sentence order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kotdwar District Pauri Garhwal dated 03.07.1997 and judgment and order dated 23.03.1998 passed by Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal thereby dismissing the appeal of the accused by confirming order of the learned Magistrate.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that Smt. Bhooma Devi was married to accused Satendra Singh on 26.11.1986. Accused Basanti Devi is mother of Satendra Singh, while accused Diwan Singh is the father of Satendra Singh. After the marriage the accused used to ill-treat and harass Smt. Bhooma Devi for not bringing sufficient dowry in the marriage. They were demanding Rs. 20,000/-. Several times they have beaten Smt. Bhooma Devi and also threatened her with life. On 31.07.1991, complainant-Vikram Singh, brother of Bhooma Devi, received a letter from his sister that she is being harassed by her in-laws, hence on 09.08.1991 he reached the residence of Satendra Singh, where Smt. Bhooma Devi was living with parents of Satendra Singh. He found that his sister Bhooma Devi was kept in confinement in one room. She was not given food also. Statendra Singh inquired as to why she was being detained in that room, on which accused Basanti Devi told the accused that they have kept her in that room, because you have not paid Rs. 20,000/- to them. She will be confined in the room till she brings Rs. 20,000/-. Vikram Singh opened the room, took out his sister and brought her back to his residence. While Vikram Singh complainant was coming, Smt. Basanti Devi had told him that unless Bhooma Devi brings Rs. 20,000/- she should not return back. F.I.R. of this occurance was lodged by Vikram Singh on 10.08.1991. On the basis of this first information report, investigation was started and charge sheet was submitted before the Trial Court under Section 498A I.P.C. and Section % Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned Magistrate took cognizance on the charge sheet. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its contention and the charge which was framed against the accused, on behalf of the prosecution four witnesses were examined. Out of them, PW.1 is Vikram Singh himself, the complainant. He has come out with the story which has been mentioned above. PW2 is Bhooma Devi herself, who too has given out the story as has been mentioned above. While PW3 is Vikram Singh Rana, a neighbour of Vikram Singh Rawat. In his statement he has asserted that he too had gone to the house of Bhooma Devi and himself being harassed and ill-treated by her husband and inlaws. P.W.4 is Gazi Uddin. He has proved the first information report and its entry in the G.D.
4. Learned Trial Court as well Appellate Court recorded concurrent findings of fact that PW2 Bhooma Devi was treated with cruelty by accused persons for not fulfilling their illegal demand.
5. Learned Trial Court had found accused persons guilty under Section 498A [Explanation (b) of the IPC]. Learned Trial Court had sentenced husband i.e. respondent No. 1 to undergo two years of R.I. while keeping in mind old age of the revisionist Nos. 2 & 3 sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment of one year under Section 498A. In Appeal, learned Appellate Court confirmed the findings recorded by learned Trial Court and upheld the judgment of learned Magistrate.
6. Mr. Anil Dabral, learned Counsel for the revisionist stated at bar that revisionist No. 1 has expired hence revision on behalf of revisionist No. 1 stands abated.
7. Learned Counsel for the revisionist stated that there is contradiction in the statement of PW1 Vikram Singh and PW2 Bhooma Devi. He further argued that letters written by PW 2 Bhooma Devi making complaint therein were not proved hence learned Trial Court and Appellate Court committed error of law by placing reliance on the letters.
8. In revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. or under Section 401 Cr.P.C, this Court has limited power. While exercising the revisional power, this Court can not sit over the judgment of the Court below as an Appellate Court. Revisional Court can disturb judgment and order passed by Court below only when Revisional Court finds that (i) Impugned judgment is perverse or (ii) Court below shut out the evidence which clinched the issue or (iii) Court below committed jurisdictional error or (iv) Court below committed such procedural error which vitiate entire proceedings.
9. I have carefully perused the record, PW2 Bhooma Devi as well as PW 1 Vikram Singh have proved the letters written by Bhooma Devi time to time complaining cruel treatment given to her by accused for not bringing of Rs. 20,000/- and sufficient dowry.
10. It is also proved from the statement of PW1 that when on 09.08.1991 Vikram Singh brother of Bhooma Devi, went to the house of the Bhooma Devi, he found Bhooma Devi locked in the room. Bhooma Devi told him that she was being kept in locked room for last three days and accused had not allowed her to eat and drink for last three days. Mother-in-law of Bhooma Devi told Vikram Singh she would be kept under confinement unless you pay Rs. 20,000/-. It was also told by respondent No. 2 unless she brings Rs. 20,000/-, she would not be allowed to enter in their house. PW2 Bhooma Devi in her statement on oath corroborated with the prosecution case and stated on oath that behaviour of accused was cruel and her life was in danger in the home of in-laws. They have beaten her several time to meet their illegal demand.
11. From the statements, case against the accused is proved beyond doubt and both the Courts below committed no illegality or error by holding accused guilty and by sentencing them.
12. Mr. Anil Dabral, learned Counsel for the revisionist could not pointed out any evidence, which escaped from the notice of the Courts below which could through light on the issue.
13. In the last, learned Counsel for the revisionist argued that now revisionist Nos. 2 & 3 both are very old and suffering from old age disease hence they may be awarded less sentence.
14. From the perusal of the record, it is clear that learned Trial Court, considering the old age of the revisionist Nos. 2 & 3, awarded one year simple imprisonment.
15. In view of the observations and discussions made herein above, I find no infirmity, jurisdictional and legal error in the judgments of the Courts below. Hence, no interference is called for. Revision is dismissed.