Lakhindra Mandal v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Laxmi Mandal
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1030 of 2016 Lakhindra Mandal … Petitioner - Versus - 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Laxmi Mandal ------ ... … Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH ----- : Mr. R. C. P. Sah, Advocate For Petitioner For the Opp. Party-State : A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Ms. Abhilasha Kumari, Amicus Curiae 07/12.09.2023 Heard the parties. --- 2. The petitioner has filed this revision application against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.06.2016, passed by Sri Anuj Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella- Kharsawan in Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2009, whereby and wherein, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella-Kharsawan, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment of conviction and modified the order of sentence dated 01.12.2009, passed by Sri Sanjiv Kumar Verma, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Seraikella in connection with Gamharia P.S. Case No.51 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. Case No.371 of 2005, holding the petitioner guilty of offences under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby, sentencing him to undergo S.I. for two years alongwith fine of Rs.200/- for offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo S.I. for one month. Both the sentences were ordered to run-concurrently. Period already undergone by the petitioner during the trial was ordered to be set off. The learned Appellate Court modified the period of sentence and reduced the same to the period of S.I. for one year under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The period of sentence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code was affirmed. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of written report of the opposite party No.2 Laxmi Mandal alleging therein that she was married to the petitioner in the year 2002, after marriage the petitioner started demanding Rs.50,000/- and 5 tolas of gold and to enforce the -2- demand, she was tortured and ultimately she was driven away from her matrimonial home. 4. In order to prove its case prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. The petitioner has also adduced oral evidence in defence of his case. On the basis of the evidence available on the record, both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner. 5. The informant Laxmi Mandal has been examined as P.W.2. She has supported the allegation as made out in the written report and has stated that she was married to the petitioner and after six month of the marriage, the petitioner started demanding Rs.50,000/- and 5 tolas of gold and to enforce the demand, she was tortured and ultimately she was driven away from her matrimonial home. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she was assaulted in the year 2004, but the matter was not reported to the police. She left her matrimonial home in June, 2005 since then she is residing with her parents. From the tenor of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and defence, it is apparent that the marriage between the parties is admitted. 6. Gopal Chandra Mandal P.W.1 is the father of the opposite party No.2. He has stated that after sometime of marriage of his daughter, the petitioner started demanding Rs.50,000/- and 5 tolas of gold and to enforce the demand, she was tortured and ultimately she was driven away from her matrimonial home. Krishna Mahato P.W.4 and Santosh Sardar @ Santu P.W.5, who are independent witnesses have stated that the father of the opposite party No.2 had come to take her back to his house, but at that time, the son of the parties was infected from chicken pox, due to which the petitioner did not allow the opposite party No.2 to go to her father's house and after sometime the father of the opposite party No.2 came with 4-5 persons and forcibly took the opposite party No.2 to his house. Shyam Singh Sardar D.W.1 and Gauri Shankar Mahato D.W.2 have also made statement to the same effect as that of Krishna Mahato P.W.4 and Santosh Sardar @ Santu P.W.5. Latika Mandal P.W.6 is mother of the opposite party No.2, she has -3- also stated that her husband went to bring back her daughter, the petitioner did not allow opposite party No.2 to accompany her husband due to which there was dispute between the parties. 7. From the aforesaid oral evidence adduced by both the sides, it is apparent that there is allegation of demand of Rs.50,000/- and ornaments by the petitioner from the opposite party No.2. However, this fact has not been proved by the cogent evidence. There is nothing on the record to show as to when the demand was made and before whom the demand was made and when the opposite party No.2 was tortured to enforce this demand. It appears that the prosecution witnesses have stated that there was dispute between the parties as the petitioner did not allow his wife to go to her father's house as their child was suffering from chicken pox. It further appears that after some days father of the opposite party No.2 came with 4-5 persons and forcibly took his daughter with him. 8. From the entire facts of this case, it appears that there was petty matrimonial dispute between the parties. The prosecution has not been able to prove that the opposite party No.2 was tortured to enforce the demand of dowry and ultimately she was driven away from her matrimonial home. Both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have come to an erroneous finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner for offences under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. This criminal revision application is allowed.
Decision
10. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. 11. Before parting I would like to record my appreciation for Ms. Abhilasha Kumari, learned Amicus Curiae, who has very ably assisted this Court in adjudicating this case. Member Secretary, JHALSA is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the learned Amicus Curiae for the services rendered by her. Jay/- (Ambuj Nath, J.)