- (1.) This petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court, paragraphs 9 and 10 of which are extracted below: 9. Minute examination of the evidence of the witnesses makes it very clear that there is no cogent and legally admissible evidence on record to establish the exact date of marriage of the deceased with the accused/Appellant No. 3. On the contrary the witnesses have stated that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the accused/Appellant No. 3 about 7-8 years back. Thus the basic ingredients for convicting a person under Section 304B IPC that death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with demand of dowry are totally amiss in this case. Considering all these aspects of the case in respect of the date of marriage, it is difficult to say that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the Appellant No. 3 within seven years of her death. More so, there is no concrete evidence on record to show that soon before death the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the Appellants and, therefore, it will not be safe for this Court to convict the accused/Appellants under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, they are acquitted of the said charge. However, in respect of offence Section 498A IPC, there is ample evidence on record to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty as defined under Section 498A IPC and, therefore, their conviction under Section 498A IPC is maintained. However, the conviction under Section 304B IPC is set-aside. Accused/Appellants are acquitted of the said charge. 10. As regards sentence, looking to the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case and that the incident had taken place in the year 1999, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on him is reduced to imprisonment for six months instead of 2 years as has been done by the Court below. Order accordingly.
(2.) We have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and perused the record. In our view, the concurrent findings and conclusion recorded by the trial Court and the learned Single Judge of the High Court holding the Petitioners guilty of offence under Section 498A IPC do not suffer from any legal infirmity and the impugned judgment does not call for interference because the High Court has already reduced the sentence from two years to six months.
(3.) The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.;