Anant Kumar Pradhan, son of late Bharat Chandra Pradhan, resident of Village- Khudasingi, P.O v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 394 of 2016 Anant Kumar Pradhan, son of late Bharat Chandra Pradhan, resident of Village- Khudasingi, P.O. & P.S.- Kharsawan, District - Seraikella- Kharsawan (Jharkhand) Petitioner … … Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Smt. Savitri Pradhan, wife of Anan Kumar Pradhan, daughter of Late Durga Charan Pradhan, resident of Village - Deogaon, P.O. & P.S. - Chakradharpur, District- Singhbhum west (Jharkhand). … … Opposite Parties --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner --- : Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, Advocate : Mr. Vineet Sinha, Advocate For the Opp. Party No. 2 : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Birat Kumar, Advocate : None --- 14/24.09.2024
Legal Reasoning
case. There is no scope for reappreciation by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. 19. This Court finds that both the learned Courts have considered the materials on record and having found specific allegations against the petitioner, the petitioner has been convicted. It is not a case where the husband has been convicted only because he is the husband. The learned Courts have cited the reasons for acquittal of the other accused persons. 20. This Court finds no illegality or perversity with regard to conviction of the petitioner by both the learned Courts. 21. After the dictation of the judgment with regard to conviction of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that 5 the petitioner has already remained in custody for the period from 22.04.2016 till the date of granting bail by this Court on 18.05.2016 and a few days must have been taken by the petitioner to furnish the bail bonds. He has further submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody at the stage of trial from 02.08.2008 to 08.09.2008. Thereafter, he was granted provisional bail on 08.09.2008 and he was taken into custody on 13.10.2008. He submits that ultimately the petitioner was granted bail on 23.10.2008. He submits that considering the total custody, it is about 2 ½ months. The learned counsel submits that the complaint case is of the year 2007 and around 17 years have already passed. He submits that considering these aspects of the matter, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of two years awarded to the petitioner be modified. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act be also considered. 22. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 has opposed the prayer and has submitted that he is opposing the prayer of the petitioner as already a lenient view has been taken by the learned Trial Court. 23. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties on the point of sentence, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court while considering the sentence of the petitioner has recorded that the Court did not deem it expedient to extend the convict the privilege of Probation of Offenders Act. The fact remains that the matter relates to cruelty against woman. 24. Considering the nature of offence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Trial Court in refusing the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner. 25. So far as the sentence is concerned, this Court finds that the petitioner has faced the criminal case since 2007-08 and was convicted on 28.08.2015. Ultimately, 17 years have elapsed from the date of the incident. In such circumstances, to secure the ends of justice, this Court finds it fit to modify the sentence awarded to the petitioner to some extent and impose fine upon the petitioner. It is not 6 in dispute that the present offence is first offence of the petitioner. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to a period of six months' Rigorous Imprisonment with fine amount of Rs. 50,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of communication of this judgment to the learned Court concerned. The fine amount so deposited be remitted to the opposite party no. 2 after due identification. 26. In case the petitioner does not deposit the fine amount within the stipulated time, he would serve the sentence as awarded by the learned Courts. 27. This criminal revision petition is disposed of with aforesaid modification of sentence. 28. 29. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Court Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. concerned through 'FAX/Email'. Pankaj (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 7
Arguments
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 2. Nobody appears on behalf of the opposite party- State of Jharkhand. 3. Vide order dated 18.05.2016, this revision was admitted only on the point of sentence. 4. This criminal revision has been filed for the following reliefs: "That this criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 22nd February, 2016 passed by Sri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, learned Sessions Judge, West Singbhum, at Chaibasa, in Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2015, whereby and whereunder he has been pleased to dismiss the appeal and uphold the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.08.2015 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Porahat, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa in C/1 Complaint Case No.10 of 2007 whereby and whereunder he has convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years along with fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation." 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the learned Courts have convicted the petitioner for offence punishable under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code only on the ground that the petitioner is the husband of the complainant. The learned counsel submits that there was general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons and all the accused persons having been acquitted on the same set of allegations and evidences, there was no occasion to convict the husband only because he is the husband. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the complainant, in her cross-examination, has stated that she had no knowledge with regard to when and what happened. He submits that this aspect of the matter has also not been considered. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that both the learned Courts have given concurrent findings with regard to the allegation proved against the husband and therefore, there is no scope for reappreciation of evidences and coming to a different conclusion. He submits that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments. 8. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 further submits that mere one statement of the complainant in her cross-examination, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is not sufficient to hold the petitioner not guilty in view of the fact that the evidences have been considered in totality by both the learned Courts. 9. learned counsel for the parties and After hearing the considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the points raised during the course of arguments, this Court finds that the petitioner, his mother, his sister and brother in-law were made accused in the case. The case arises out of a complaint petition. The allegation in the complaint petition was that the marriage was solemnized on 18.04.2000 and a marriage certificate was also issued. On 08.04.2003 a male child was born out of the wedlock. It was further alleged in the complaint petition that the accused persons were perpetrating innumerable atrocities upon the complainant on account of non- fulfillment of demand of Rs. 50000/- in cash and motorcycle and subjected her to cruelty. On 23.11.2004 the complainant was assaulted 2 and driven out from her matrimonial house. She disclosed the entire fact to her brother. The matter was also considered by Mahila Samiti. Ultimately, when nothing materialized, the complaint case was filed. 10. In order to support the case, the complainant had examined altogether 3 witnesses. The learned Trial Court considered the evidence of the prosecution witnesses including the complainant. 11. The learned Trial Court recorded that so far as C.W. 3 is concerned, he deposed that the accused nos. 3 and 4 i.e. the sister-in- law and borther-in-law were residing within jurisdictional area of another police station and no assault was made to the complainant in his presence. So far as C.W. 2 is concerned, he also stated in his cross- examination that the accused nos. 2 and 4 were residing separately. C.W. 1 (complainant) also admitted in her cross-examination that accused nos. 2 and 4 were residing separately and the complainant was living with her husband and mother in-law in her matrimonial house. 12. The learned Court ultimately acquitted the mother-in-law as well as accused nos. 3 and 4 after discussing the materials on record and so far as the petitioner is concerned, he was convicted. 13. From the perusal of the discussion of evidence of C.W. 1, it has been recorded that she deposed that the matter was reported to Mahila Samiti and an effort was made in the year 2007 but the husband did not mend his attitude and the child was snatched by the accused persons. Subsequently, maintenance case was instituted and on the direction of the Court, the wife had gone to her matrimonial home but the husband did not mend his ways and threatened to have second marriage. The learned Court after considering the materials has convicted the petitioner. 14. The learned Appellate Court has also considered the materials and has upheld the conviction of the petitioner. The learned Appellate Court has also considered the argument of the petitioner that there was no specific allegation with respect to the day and time. The same argument was rejected in the following manner: 3 "In this connection, the argument of appellant that there is no specific allegation with day and date or time against the appellant and all the allegations are general and omnibus in nature is also not legally tenable. The reason is obvious, that pith and substance of the allegation leveled by the complainant are sufficient to prove the necessary constituents of offence u/s 498A I.P.C." 15. The learned appellate Court while considering the evidence of CW 1 has also recorded that the evidence of CW 1 goes to show that she complained before Mahila Samiti for conciliation and again in the year 2007 went to her matrimonial house. However, the husband's behaviour did not change and he kept the child in his custody and again ousted her from her matrimonial home. 16. As per the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court, his first point is that the petitioner has been convicted merely because he is the husband and on the same set of evidence, the other accused persons have been acquitted and there was general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons. The second point is that the complainant in her cross-examination has stated that she had no knowledge with regard to when and what happened. 17. So far as the first point is concerned, this Court finds that in the evidence of the complainant, she has made allegations against all the accused persons with regard to demand of money and motorcycle and her torture. She was ousted from her matrimonial house with child on 23.11.2004. However, there is a specific allegation against the petitioner - husband wherein she has stated that the matter was reported to Mahila Samiti and an effort was made in the year 2007, but the husband did not mend his attitude and child was snatched by accused persons. The aforesaid allegation of the year 2007 that the husband did not mend his ways is an allegation specifically made against the husband. It has also come in evidence that the complainant was residing in her brother's house since 23.11.2004 and after the incident, secretary of Mahila Samiti along with the complainant and her brother had gone to matrimonial house of the complainant and she 4 was allowed to reside at the matrimonial house and the minor child of the complainant was snatched away by the accused persons. The complainant had also deposed that only mother-in-law and her husband were residing in her matrimonial home and the learned Courts have found that there is no specific allegation against the mother-in-law. This Court further finds that the learned Trial Court, while acquitting the mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law has recorded that brother-in-law and sister-in-law were residing in a different village and no specific allegation was made either by the complainant or her witnesses with regard to perpetrating act committed for illegal demand of dowry by the accused nos. 2, 3 and 4 i.e. mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that on the same set of allegations, the others have been acquitted and the petitioner has been convicted only on account of the fact that he is the husband. 18. So far as the second point that the complainant in her cross- examination could not give the specific date of the incident is concerned, this court is of the considered view that the evidence of the witnesses are required to be read as a whole and one line of the cross- examination cannot be picked up. Both the learned Courts have considered the evidences on record in totality and come to concurrent finding and have held that the complainant had fully supported the