Vinod Das @ Vinod Kumar Das, son of Mansu Das, resident of Village – v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Kumari Rita @ Rita Devi, Daughter of Kanhai
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 424 of 2009 ------ Vinod Das @ Vinod Kumar Das, son of Mansu Das, resident of Village – Barkama, P.O. & P.S. – Chandan Kiyari, District - Bokaro. .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Kumari Rita @ Rita Devi, Daughter of Kanhai Das, resident of Village – Chandan Kiyari, P.S. – Chandan Kiyari, District – Bokaro. .... .... Opp. Parties ------ Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------ For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Brij Bihari Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P. : Ms. Satya Shatakshi, Advocate. ------ JUDGMENT CAV On Dated- 23.02.2024 Pronounced On 09.04.2024
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 26.02.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2008, whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.11.2007 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Bokaro in C.P. Case No. 334 of 2000, convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and awarded sentence of R.I. for three years, has been dismissed. 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized on 27.04.1999 at Village – Page 1 of 8 Karharya according to the rites and customs of Hindus. After marriage, she went to her sasural, where she lived for two months peacefully, thereafter her husband and other accused persons started cruelty upon her. They were asking Rs. 51,000/- cash, colour T.V., sofa set as additional dowry and due to non-fulfillment of the same, the complainant was subjected to cruelty and ultimately, she was driven out from her sasural on 25.10.2000 and since, then she is living at her parent’s house. 4. After examination of the complainant on S.A. and her witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. a prima facie case under Section 498 A I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act has been found against the accused person and they have been summoned to face the trial. After examination of the witnesses of the complainant, both the parties have been heard and charge under Section 498A I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act has been framed, which has been denied by the petitioner and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial court after conclusion of trial found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as stated above. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence was confirmed by the appellate court which has been assailed in this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was all along on bail during trial of the case as well as Page 2 of 8 appellate stage and never misused the privilege of bail. After judgment of the appellate court, the petitioner was taken into custody on 14.07.2009 and after preferring the present revision before this Hon’ble Court, the petitioner was admitted on bail vide order dated 03.08.2009 and he was released on bail on 06.08.2009. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was married with the complainant on 27.04.1999, but from the very inception of the marriage, the conduct and behavior of the complainant was not cordial with the petitioner and his family members. She was always scuffling with the family members and ultimately, on her own accord, left the matrimonial home. The petitioner has also filed an application for restitution of conjugal rites under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was dismissed due to adamant behavior of the complainant. 7.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that all the allegations of additional demand of dowry and consequential torture alleged by the complainant are false and fabricated story and the allegation against the petitioner was never substantiated through cogent and reliable evidence, inspite of that, the learned trial court has held the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. which was affirmed by the learned appellate court without re-appreciating the evidence and materials available on record. Page 3 of 8 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the single incriminating substance has been put to the petitioner in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as under:- iz’u % vkids fo#) vkjksi ,ao lk{; gS fd ifjokfnuh jhrk nsoh dh ’kknh fnukad 27-4-99 dks vkids lkFk gksus ds ckn vki vU; vfHk;qDr ds lkFk feydj mlls ngst gsrq izrkfM+r djrs jgs gSa rFkk ekjihV djrs Fksa \ D;k dguk gS \ mRrj % ugh A xyr gS A The petitioner has also pleaded his innocence in his defence. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the charge was framed on 04.03.2005 for the offences under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The charge under Section 498A of the I.P.C. reads as under:- “That you, on or about the 27.04.99 to 25.10.2000 at Village – Chandankiyari, P.S. – Chandankiyari, District – Bokaro, you being husband and relative of husband of Reeta Devi, W/o Bindo Kumar Das subjected to cruelty by stopping food and water and assaulted said Reeta Devi by fist and blow and also attempt to kill said Reeta Devi by dropping kerosene oil on the body of said Reeta Devi and also attempt to burn match box and further you capture the educational certificate of said Reeta Devi” But surprisingly, the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court without evaluating any evidence in respect of Page 4 of 8 aforesaid charge and finding any incriminating circumstances showing any specific overt act in relation to the above charges and without providing opportunity to the petitioner to explain the same, has illegally held guilty and sentenced for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. The petitioner has been acquitted for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, therefore, the demand of additional dowry and consequent torture meted to the complainant stands falsified. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that as a matter of fact not only the present petitioner but also the complainant has solemnized their second marriage and leading a happy conjugal life, as such, both are settled in their life in their own ways. Notices were issued to the opposite party no.2 / complainant of this case after admission of this case for hearing and it was reported that her present husband has personally received the notice, but she did not turn up to contest this case, hence, this Court has appointed learned counsel, Ms. Satya Shatakshi, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of opposite party no. 2. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that since more than quarter century has been passed from the institution of this case and both parties have been settled in their life, hence, sending the petitioner to suffer the agony of imprisonment will serve no fruitful purpose. Hence, in alternative, it is urged by Page 5 of 8 learned counsel for the petitioner that during trial of the case and pendency of the appeal, the appellant has remained in custody for about 01 month, which may be treated as sufficient punishment for the offence committed by the petitioner and accordingly sentence awarded by the learned trial court may be modified to the extent of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. Hence, this revision may be allowed. 12. Learned APP on behalf of the State and learned Amicus Curiae appointed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 have contended that so far conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. is concerned, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned concurrent findings of the learned trial court as well as by the appellate court, but considering the facts and circumstances of the case and pendency of the dispute since long and also in view of the facts that both the parties have solemnized their marriage and settled in their life, the prayer for reduction of sentence may be considered. 13. I have gone through the record of the case and also perused the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court as well as appellate court, from which, it transpired that in substance, the trial court has not found any evidence of demand of dowry or any physical assault meted with Page 6 of 8 the complainant in order to prove the charge under Section 498A of the I.P.C. but at the same time, the learned trial court noticed, the Exhibit-C & C/a which are the order sheet dated 24.01.2006 and 27.02.2006 of Title Matrimonial Suit No. 66 of 2000 filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the husband against his wife (complainant) which shows that the Title Matrimonial Case was instituted on 08.11.2000, whereas the complaint petition was filed by the wife earlier on 31.10.2000 which has been filed only to make defence in this case. The said petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner / husband had solemnized second marriage in the life time of his first wife (Complainant), so that both were not ready to live with each other and discharge their conjugal rights and obligations. The factum of second marriage in the life time of first wife (complainant) was treated as an instance of cruelty against the first wife and it is not excusable, which was found sufficient to hold the husband / petitioner guilty for the charge under Section 498A of the I.P.C. The learned appellate court has also reiterated the same view on the same set of facts proved by the complainant. 14. In the above scenario since the petitioner has confined his argument only to the extent of quantum of sentence and its modification, therefore, without delving into the merits of the judgment, I find it a fit case to reduce the sentence of rigorous Page 7 of 8 imprisonment of three years awarded to the petitioner, which is the maximum punishment under Section 498A I.P.C. into the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him. 15. In view of above discussions and reasons, this revision is dismissed on merits, but with modification in sentence to the extent mentioned above i.e. petitioner is sentenced to go imprisonment for the period already undergone. 16. Petitioner is on bail, as such, he shall be discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties shall also be discharged. 17. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 09/04/2024 Sunil/-NAFR Page 8 of 8