The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 474 of 2007 1. Bhoto Mahauta @ Bhoto Mahto 2. Asha Mahatani 3. Kandri Mahatani 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Shrimati Mahato Versus --------- ….. Petitioners ….. Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No.2 --------- : Ms. Saman Ahmad, Amicus : Mr. B.N. Ojha, APP : Ms. Apoorva Pathak, Amicus -------- 08/ 02.03.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant revision application is directed against the judgment dated 14.11.2006, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella Kharsawan, whereby the Cr. Appeal No. 4 (C)/2001, preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 21.12.2000, in G.R. No. 735 of 1998, corresponding to T.R. No. 373 of 2000, passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Seraikella, whereby the petitioners were convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, has been affirmed. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant’s marriage was solemnized with Bhoto Mahto and there were three issues out of their wedlock. Thereafter, it is stated that she was assaulted by the family members at her matrimonial house and they used to demand money from her parents. Once she had brought a sum of Rs.2,000/- again Rs.1,000/- and again Rs.2,000/- from her brother. It is further alleged that on 14.12.1998, husband of the informant went to marry with one Sakuntala Mahato. Thereafter, FIR has been lodged against the petitioners. After investigation, police have submitted chargesheet and cognizance has been taken against the alleged offences; for which the petitioners pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After trial, the petitioners were found guilty for the offences and they were convicted and their appeal was also rejected by the learned appellate court. 4. Ms. Saman Ahmad, learned Amicus appearing for the petitioner no.3 submits that during pendency of this case, petitioner no. 1 & 2 2 had died and the instant application has been dismissed as abated against petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 vide order dated 13.10.2022. She further submits that the learned court below has not considered that no prosecution witnesses supported the allegation against the petitioner No.3. Further, petitioner No.3 is a married woman and living separately with her husband. So far as the allegation of assault by the petitioner no.3 is concerned; there is no medical report in this regard. As a matter of fact, petitioner No.3 is innocent and has falsely been dragged in this case by manipulation and intervention of the family members of the informant. 5. Learned APP for the State supported the judgment and submits that there is no error in the findings given by the Courts below. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside. 6. Learned amicus appearing for the O.P. No.2 submits that there is no error in the judgment and under the revisional jurisdiction this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned judgments including the lower courts records and documents available on record it appears that the petitioner No.1 (husband) and petitioner No.2 (mother-in-law) have died during the pendency of this case. It further transpires that no prosecution witnesses have supported the allegation against the petitioner No.3. The petitioner No.3 is a married woman and living separately with her husband. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Sharma vs. State of U.P reported in (2018) 10 SCC 472 has while dealing with the issue regarding the tendency of aggrieved wives to rope in all the relatives of the husband in the cases relating to matrimonial disputes, observed as under: “14. Section 498A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. The expression ‘cruelty’ in Section 498A covers conduct which may drive the women to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under Section 498A alleging harassment of married women. We have already referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in 3 the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in another case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 has observed at para 4 as under: “4. There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A of the IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed- ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.” 9. In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements and the evidence available on record it is clear that there is no direct allegation against the petitioner No.3. The object of Section 498A of the IPC was of grueling brutality at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman. The prosecution has failed to prove any such incident that the ingredients of Section 498A is proved. Merely the fact that the petitioner No.3 was sister-in-law, as such she was involved for the offence u/s 498A IPC is not sufficient. Thus, this Court is of the firm view that this case requires interference, so far as petitioner no.3 is concerned. 10. Consequently, the judgment dated 14.11.2006, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella Kharsawan, in Cr. Appeal No. 4 (C)/2001 and also the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.12.2000, passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Seraikella, in G.R. No. 735 of 1998, corresponding to T.R. No. 373 of 2000 whereby the petitioner No.3 was convicted for the charge u/s 498 A of IPC, is hereby, quashed and set- aside. 11. As a result, the instant criminal revision application stands
Decision
allowed and disposed of. 12. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services 4 Committee shall reimburse Ms. Saman Ahmad, learned Amicus for the petitioner and Ms. Apoorva Pathak, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 on submission of bill(s) for this case @ Rs.5000/- each per hearing subject to the maximum ceiling as per the applicable Notification. 13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below, the Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee and the petitioner No.3. 14. The petitioner No.3 shall be discharged from the liability of her bail bond. 15. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Pramanik/