Mahagama, District-Godda. … v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mamta Devi, wife of Mantu Jaiswal, D/O Sheo
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 914 of 2015 Mantu Jaiswal @ Mantu Kumar Jaiswal, Son of Surendra Bhagat, Resident of Village: Mohanpur, P.O.+P.S.: Mahagama, District-Godda. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mamta Devi, wife of Mantu Jaiswal, D/O Sheo Pujan Bhagat, Resident of Village- Mohanpur (Wasua Malid Road) P.O. + P.S.- Mahagama, District- Godda, Jharkhand. ….. Opp. Parties --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P. No.2 -------- : Mr. S.P. Roy, Adv. : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P. : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Adv. --------- JUDGMENT C.A.V. On 21.06.2024 Pronounced On: 30.08.2024 Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. assisted with learned counsel for the Opposite Party no.2. 2. The instant criminal revision is filed challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of conviction and sentence passed by
Legal Reasoning
Learned Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 105/2011 dated 23.06.2015 whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment of two years along with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation for the offence under Section 498A of I.P.C. Page | 1 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the complainant Mamta Devi was married with the present petitioner under Special Marriage Act, 1954 before the Registrar Marriage Office, Godda on 09.05.2008 and a marriage certificate was accordingly issued. The background of the case is that prior to the said marriage, while the complainant/victim was a minor girl, the present petitioner induced her to establish physical relation which resulted in her pregnancy. Thereafter, the petitioner denied the paternity of child as well as to solemnize marriage. Hence, the complainant lodged a case of rape bearing Mahagama P.S. Case No. 149 of 2005 corresponding to G.R. No. 1268 of 2005, wherein the present petitioner at the time of filing his regular bail petition undertook to marry with the complainant. Accordingly, the marriage was solemnized under the provisions of Special Marriage Act, 1954 and petitioner was granted bail. It is alleged that after the said marriage complainant was kept in a rented house at Chaprasitola for about one and half months by the petitioner, but she was not properly behaved and frequently assaulted, tortured and tormented and ousted from the said rented house by her husband along with her kid and she started living at her parental home. It is alleged that father and other relatives and well- wishers of the complainant approached to the father of the present petitioner on 05.04.2009 to resolve the matter and provide dignified life to the complainant and requested them to keep the complainant, but the husband and in-laws as well as other family members did not allow her to stay there and driven out by pulling her hair and she Page | 2 was also assaulted by her mother-in-law and other family members by fits and slaps. The complainant was also threatened to be killed. A sum of Rs.1,000,00/- was also demanded to give shelter at matrimonial home. Thereafter, the complainant through her father lodged several complaints before the higher authorities, but all in vain. The complainant also filed a case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage for restitution of Conjugal Rights and ultimately lodged the present complaint case No. 255 of 2009 before the C.J.M., Godda on 16.05.2009. After conducting inquiry, the accused persons were summoned for the offences under Section 498A of I.P.C. After the conclusion of trial, petitioner was held guilty and sentenced as stated above. 4. Altogether five accused persons were convicted including present petitioner by the learned Trial Court who preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 2011/ 29 of 2013 before the Learned Sessions Judge which was heard and decided by Additional Sessions Judge-II, Godda and vide judgment dated 23rd June, 2015, the conviction and sentence of the present petitioner was upheld and confirmed and rest of the accused persons were extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted, which has been assailed in this revision. 5. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner for the offences under Section 498A of I.P.C. It is strenuously argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was love affair between the complainant and the petitioner. Although, due to some impediments, the marriage could not be Page | 3 solemnized, then the complainant lodged a criminal Case under Sections 376, 420 and 500 of I.P.C. In the above rape case, the petitioner was granted provisional bail by Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 04.12.2006 passed in B.A. No. 2493 of 2006 which was confirmed vide order dated 11.05.2007. Thereafter, present petitioner solemnized marriage with the complainant on 09.05.2008, when the complainant attained the age of majority, i.e., 18 years and both started living together separately in a rented house at Chaprasitola, Godda. It is further submitted that the petitioner was granted bail in the rape case on undertaking to solemnize marriage with the complainant due to her pregnancy and started living with the complainant in a dignified manner, but she could not adjust with the petitioner in a rented house on his meagre income and left him within two months and testified herself as a witness during trial of the rape case vide S.T. Case No.88 of 2006 resulting in conviction of the petitioner vide judgment dated 05.08.2008. The petitioner was again sent to jail. After conviction, the petitioner preferred a criminal appeal (S.J. No. 1204 of 2008) and was granted bail vide order dated 18.12.2008. Thereafter, in a quick succession, the complainant has filed three more cases against the petitioner and (i) Matrimonial case No. 94 of 2009 under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act on 05.05.2009 (ii) Present complaint case No. 255 of 2009 dated 16.05.2009 and (iii) Maintenance Case No. 309 of 2009 dated 05.06.2009 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for maintenance. Page | 4
Legal Reasoning
6. It is contended that the petitioner and his family members have been victimized at the instance of the complainant with an oblique motive and only with an intention to harass entire family members have been made accused for their no fault. The complainant has mentioned the cause of action dated 05.04.2009, whereas the complaint case was instituted on 16.05.2009 and prior to that matrimonial case under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed. It is further submitted that the entire occurrence is alleged to have happened on 05.04.2009, but no specific overt act of any kind has been attributed against the petitioner rather it was against his family members who have been acquitted by the Appellate Court. Admittedly, after marriage, the complainant was residing with the petitioner, but she has levelled wild allegations of assault and torture against her in-laws and other family members excluding the petitioner, which caused serious doubt on the entire prosecution story. The complainant has given colorable statement at different stages of the proceeding changing taste and flavour of the allegations against the accused persons including the petitioner. 7. The learned Trial Court well as Appellate Court have miserably failed to properly consider the ingredients of offence under Section 498A of I.P.C. and arrived at wrong conclusion. 8. In the alternative, it is pleaded that during the course of trial and pendency of appeal and revision, the petitioner has already under gone imprisonment of 6 months and sufficiently punished. It is a case of misuse of penal provision of Section 498A of I.P.C. The Page | 5 petitioner has already been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. and appeal is pending. The petitioner has no criminal background. About two decades is going to expire from the occurrence and the petitioner has lost his valuable days of life, hence, the sentence passed against the petitioner is fit to be reduced to the extent of imprisonment already undergone and this
Decision
revision may be disposed of. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 as well as learned counsel appearing for the State have vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that it is the petitioner alone who has ruined the life of an innocent girl along with a minor child. She was exploited sexually while she was minor resulting in her pregnancy. She became a mother even being unmarried. The petitioner was granted bail in case for the offence of rape, on assurance of marriage and to extend dignified life to the victim with a newly born baby, but instead of providing her economical and moral support, he started assaulting her along with a new born baby and just after two months of marriage made her life miserable and ousted from the rented house where she was kept. The petitioner by his willful conduct has subjected the complainant to mental and physical cruelty, harassment and torture without any reasonable excuse. The prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubts and there are concurrent findings of the learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court upholding the guilt of Page | 6 the petitioner which suffers from no illegality or infirmity. No leniency in the matter of sentence is warranted in this case in favour of the petitioner. Hence, this revision is fit to be dismissed. 10. I have given anxious consideration to the points of arguments raised on behalf of respective parties. Here, it is pertinent to observe that Section 498A was introduced in the year 1983 in the Indian Penal Code under Chapter XXA to protect married woman from being subjected to cruelty by the husband or his other relatives, a punishment extending to three years and fine has been prescribed for the said offence. The expression “Cruelty” has been defined in wide terms so as to include inflicting physical or mental harm to the body or health to the woman and indulging in acts of harassment with a view to coerce her or her relations to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. Harassment for dowry falls within the sweep of latter limb of the section. Creating a situation driving woman to commit suicide is also one of the ingredients of “cruelty”. The provisions is extracted as under:- Section 498-A:- Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation:- for the purpose of this Section, “Cruelty” means- (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb, or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or Page | 7 (b)harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 11. In the instant case, the victim wife has been examined as CW-2 who has categorically proved the contents of her complaint petition stating inter alia the entire episode in chronological manner stating that at the time of incident she was a minor and student of Class VIII in the year 2005. She was forcibly ravished by the present petitioner in his own house while she had gone to visit her friend’s house namely Poonam Kumari who happens to be the sister of the present petitioner resultantly, she became pregnant. In this connection, Mahagama P.S. Case No. 149 of 2005 was registered for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. wherein at the time of grant of bail, the petitioner assured to solemnize marriage with the victim girl when DNA profile revealed his paternity with the pregnancy of the victim girl. It is also proved that after getting bail the petitioner did not keep her at matrimonial home rather to a rented house and compelled her to reside in isolation with her child without extending care and support to the victim girl and her newly born child and frequently used to torture her mentally and physically. The panchayati was also failed, the petitioner and his family members were not ready to keep her unless Rs.1,00,000/- was given to them. She was also physically assaulted along with her father at the matrimonial home when they want to convene Panchayti for amicable settlement. The victim was compelled to Page | 8 lodge the case under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance of herself and the minor child and also lodged a case under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for Restitution of Conjugal Rights, but all in vain. Subsequently, the father of the victim was also murdered and, in that connection, Mahagama P.S. Case No. 4 of 2011 was also lodged by the complainant/victim, which was registered under Section 302/120B/34 of I.P.C. against the present petitioner and other co-accused persons. 12. It appears that oral as well as documentary evidences relied upon by the prosecution have been properly considered by the learned Trial Court and the Appellate Court. The present petitioner while cross- examining the complainant (P.W-2) has extended suggestion that in spite of knowledge that present petitioner is not willing to keep her, she along with her father came to his house on 05.04.2009 for putting pressure and lodged this false case. There is no plausible reason to call for any interference with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the petitioner. The gravity of offence and the conduct of petitioner does not warrant any leniency in the matter of sentence also. In view of the aforesaid discussion and reasons, I do not find any merits in this revision, which stands dismissed. 13. Petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned Trail Court within one month from the receipt of the copy of this order to serve the rest of the sentence awarded to him, failing which required coercive steps shall be taken by learned trial court. Page | 9 14. Let the copy of this judgment along with Trial Court record be sent back to the concerned Court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : ____/08/2024 Amar/- N.A.F.R. Page | 10