Rajendra Giri … v. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Reena Devi
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.1220 of 2017 Rajendra Giri …… Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Reena Devi --------- ……. Opp. Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Mukesh Bihari Lal, Advocate : Mrs. Shweta Singh, APP : None ----------- Oral Judgment in Court 06/Dated:13th December, 2023 This Criminal Revision has been filed on behalf of the
Legal Reasoning
petitioner challenging the judgment dated 10.08.2017 passed by Sri Abni Ranjan Kumar Sinha, learned Sessions Judge-Gumla in Cr. Appeal No.34 of 2017 by which the Criminal Appeal preferred by
Decision
the petitioner has been dismissed as disposed of by acquitting him for the offence under section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act but the learned Sessions Judge has upheld the judgment of conviction for the offence under section 498-A of the I.P.C and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and has modified the sentence from R.I for three years to R.I for one year and fine of Rs.6,000/- was reduced to fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC and R.I. for one year was reduced to R.I. for six (06) months but fine of Rs.3,000/- was upheld for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, although the Trial Court i.e. Sri Manoj Kumar Ram, learned S.D.J.M, Gumla has convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I for a period of three (03) years, R.I for six months 2 and R.I. for one (01) year respectively and to pay fine of Rs.6,000/-, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.3000/- respectively. However, all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. It reveals that one complaint petition was filed on 27.01.2009 against the petitioner stating therein by the complainant-O.P. No.2 that her marriage was performed with the petitioner on 28.04.2008 but the petitioner and her in-laws used to demand dowry and tortured her for non-fulfilling of the demand. It is alleged that the petitioner has assaulted her and used to take wine. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is not pressing this Criminal Revision Application on merit rather he is arguing on the point of sentence only. It is further submitted that O.P. No.2-Reena Devi has remarried with one Chunnu Sharma. It is submitted that the allegation of demand of dowry and torture are concocted as all the family members of the petitioner have been acquitted by the learned Court below except this petitioner and hence lenient view may be taken for him. 4. It is submitted that informant of the complaint had left the house of the petitioner due to love affairs with one Chunnu Sharma and she has performed marriage with him, which is evident from the order dated 19.02.2019 passed in F.A. No.117 of 2017 by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. It is submitted that even the Division Bench of this Court has observed vide order dated 19.02.2019 that the respondent i.e. Reena Devi (O.P. No.2) has remarried and she does not want any concern from this appellant (i.e. the petitioner) and the statement was made at Bar by the learned counsel for the respondent (i.e. O.P. No.2). It is further submitted that the petitioner was in custody from 29.06.2017 to 30.08.2018 and hence the petitioner may be 3 acquitted and the instant Criminal Revision Application may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned APP for the State has submitted that the O.P. No.2 has remarried with some other person and hence necessary order may be passed in this case. 6. It transpires that the O.P. No.2 has filed Complaint case No.13 of 2009 against the petitioner (i.e. the husband) and five other persons who are the other in-law’s members of the O.P. No.2 for torturing and assaulting her for demand of Rs.50,000/- cash and one Hero Honda Motorcycle (Passion Plus). She also alleged that petitioner has threatened him to perform second marriage due to non-fulfillment of demand and she was ousted from her matrimonial home on 24.07.2008. 7. It transpires that the learned trial court has acquitted five persons namely Ramsevak Giri (father of the petitioner), Deocharan Giri, Kalindi Devi, Rekha Devi and Krishna Bharti. However, the learned Court below has convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 8. Thereafter the petitioner had preferred Criminal Appeal. 9. Although the learned Appellate Court has upheld the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 498-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act but has acquitted the petitioner for the offence under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act and has disposed of the Criminal Appeal by reducing the sentence from R.I for three years to R.I for one year and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- instead of Rs.6,000/- for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and also reduced the sentence of R.I for Six months and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act respectively and both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 4 10. It transpires that the learned Court below has disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in respect of five accused persons namely Ramsevak Giri (father of the petitioner), Deocharan Giri, Kalindi Devi, Rekha Devi and Krishna Bharti but has convicted the petitioner for the same set of evidence. 11. From perusal of evidence of P.W-1 who is the father of the O.P. No.2, during his cross-examination, it would appear that he had demanded money from the petitioner which was marriage expenditure and he was ready for getting divorce from his daughter to the petitioner. Thus the evidence of P.W-1 shows that he was merely interested on getting return of articles and expenditure. 12. It reveals from the evidence of P.W-3, Sumitra Devi (i.e. the mother of the O.P. No.2) from her cross-examination that they (i.e. both the side) had also agreed to withdraw the case against the petitioner if the entire articles is returned by the petitioner to her daughter. 13. Thus, it reveals that both P.W-1 and P.W-3 had stated that their daughter will grant divorce to the petitioner if the expenses of marriage are returned to the complainant (i.e. O.P. No.2). 14. It transpires from the evidence of P.W-5, Reena Devi (i.e. the complainant-O.P. No.2) that though she has tried to support her allegation as made out in the complaint by stating that she was subjected to torture and assault by her husband in the drunken state of wine and several times her food was stopped. However, during her cross-examination, she has stated that even if her husband is ready to give bond of any condition then also she will not be accompanying her husband. She had further stated that even if her husband keeps her separately from his family in a rented house in a village then also she will not live with 5 him. However, she further asserted that even if her husband wanted to keep her separately she will not live with him. 15. It also transpires that there is lot of contradictions during the statement made before the Solemn Affirmation of P.W-5 at the time of instituting the complaint case before the learned Court below and during her evidence she also admitted during her further cross-examination that on 19.04.2011 that her husband in presence of several local villagers came to her Maike and requested for Bidai and for which a paper work was prepared which was also signed by her and her father and mother and several villagers were involved. She has further stated she desires divorce from her husband. 16. Thus from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W-1, P.W-3 and P.W-5, it is apparent that it is not a case of dowry demand and torture rather it is evident from the evidence of the P.W-1, P.W-3 and P.W-5 namely Bhuneshwar Giri, Sumitra Devi and Reena Devi (O.P. No.2) respectively that they had desired that O.P. No.2 may get divorce from the petitioner. 17. Therefore, institution of the complaint case for accusation of the petitioner for demand of dowry and troture is not proper. 18. Considering that there are several inconsistences in the evidence of the complaint-O.P. No.2 and the witnesses P.W-1to P.W-5 and considering that the complainant (i.e. O.P. No.2) wanted to take divorce from the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC is not made out against the petitioner 19. It further transpires from the order dated 19.02.2019 passed in F.A. No.117 of 2017 by the Division Bench of this Court that the O.P. NO.2 (i.e. wife) has not concern with the petitioner and O.P. No.2 Reena Devi has remarried. 6 20. Under the circumstances, the judgment dated 10.08.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in Cr. Appeal No.34 of 2017 and the judgment dated 27.07.2017 passed by learned S.D.J.M, Gumla in Complaint Case No.13 of 2009 (T.R. No.05 of 2017), are set aside and the petitioner namely Rajendra Giri is acquitted for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the petitioner namely Rajendra Giri is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. 21. Thus, the instant Cr. Revision No.1220 of 2017 is allowed and stands disposed of. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Saket/- N.A.F.R.