Aftab Ansari … v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sahin Parween
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 302 of 2016 Aftab Ansari … … Petitioner - Versus - 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sahin Parween ------ ... … Opposite Parties CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH ----- For the Petitioner : M/s. Ashna Khanam, Advocate For the State : M/s. P. K. Chatterjee, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : M/s. K. S. Nanda, Advocate --- 09/26.07.2023
Legal Reasoning
Heard the Parties. The petitioner has filed this application against the
Legal Reasoning
judgement dated 13.01.2016, passed by Sri Sachindra Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 127/2014, whereby and wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Dhanbad dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.09.2014, passed by Sri Dhananjay Kumar, learned J.M.F.C., Dhanbad in connection with Jorapokhar P. S. Case No. 138/2012, corresponding to G. R. No. 2426/2012, holding the petitioner guilty of offences under section 498-A of the Indian penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and thereby sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 2 years alongwith a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for one year alongwith a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 04 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was further directed to undergo R.I. for 10 days for each of the aforesaid offences. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of a complaint case being C. P. Case No. 1056/2012, which was referred to Jorapokhar police station under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for the institution of the F.I.R. and accordingly the aforesaid F.I.R was instituted. The Opposite Party No. 2 has made out a case that she was married to the petitioner on 11.04.2009. After marriage, the petitioner started demanding Rs.50,000/- from her uncle, to enforce the demand she was tortured and ultimately she was driven away from her matrimonial home. It is further the case of the Opposite Party No. 2 that the matter was compromised and she was received back to her matrimonial home but the petitioner again started demanding Rs. 50,000/- and finally on 24.12.2012, she was once again driven away from her matrimonial home with a threat that unless she brought Rs. 35,000/- in cash and some jewellery without it she would not be allowed to resume her matrimonial relationship. The prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence to prove its case. Both the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner. Learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there is inconsistent evidence regarding the quantum of dowry which was demanded by the petitioner as will be apparent from the averment made in the complaint petition which is Ext.-1 and the statement of the witnesses and the Opposite Party No. 2 recorded during the trial. It was further submitted that there is general and omnibus statement made against the petitioner by the witnesses. Accordingly, it was prayed that this application be allowed. Learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 has stated that there is specific averment that the Opposite Party No. 2 was tortured to enforce the demand of dowry and ultimately she was driven away from her matrimonial home. From the perusal of the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution, it transpires that Sahin Parween has been examined as P.W.4., She and all the other witnesses have stated that she was legally married wife of the petitioner. These witnesses have not been cross-examined on this point. Accordingly, I come to a finding that the prosecution has been able to show that the Opposite Party No. 2 is legally married wife of the petitioner. Sahin Parween P.W. 4 in her testimony before the court has stated that she was married to the petitioner and after 2-3 months of marriage, the petitioner started assaulting her. The petitioner and her in-laws sometimes demanded Rs. 50,000/- and sometimes Rs.30,000/- as dowry and ultimately she was driven away from her matrimonial home. The matter was settled, she again returned back to resume her matrimonial relationship but again there was demand of Rs. 50,000/- and finally she was again driven away from her matrimonial home. She has stated that a Panchayati was held in which the matter was settled. She will file the terms of settlement which was decided in the Panchayati. However, no document to this effect has been filed. Mufida Khatoon P.W.1, is mother of the informant she has stated that the accused persons sometimes used to demand Rs.10,000/- and sometimes Rs.20,000/- as dowry. She has stated that demand was made to her daughter. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she cannot say as to when her daughter was driven away from her matrimonial home, naturally as per the statement of this witness, no demand was made from her. Karu Ansari P.W. 2 is uncle of the informant he has stated that the petitioner started demanding Rs.50,000/- this fact was told to this witness by the complainant herself. Haidar Ansari P.W.3 is another uncle of the informant, he has stated that there was demand of Rs.50,000/- and to enforce the demand she was tortured and ultimately she was driven away from her matrimonial home after 2 years of her marriage. In his cross-examination he has stated that he cannot say as to when the demand of dowry was made. He has stated that the demand was also made in “Maika” of the informant. From the aforesaid oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it is apparent that there is contradiction in the statement of the witnesses regarding the quantum of money which was demanded as dowry. Mufida Khatoon P.W.1 has stated that sometime demand of Rs.10,000/- and sometimes demand of Rs. 20,000/- was made, whereas Karu Ansari P.W. 2 and Haidar Ansari P.W.3 have stated that demand of Rs.50,000/- was made. Mufida Khatoon P.W.1 has stated that the demand was made from the informant, no demand was made from her. Whereas P.W.3 has contradicted this fact and has stated that the demand was also made by the petitioner by going to the “Maika” of the informant. The statement made by the witnesses regarding the demand of dowry and the torture meted out to the informant and ultimately driving her out of her matrimonial home is not supported by specific date on which demand was made and by whom the demand was made and when torture was meted out to her. There is also contradiction regarding the period when the informant was driven away from her matrimonial home. Though the prosecution has claimed that there was a compromise in Panchayati and the terms of compromise was reduced in writing and the informant had undertaken to adduce his document in evidence such undertaking was never complied with. From the aforesaid facts; I am of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt. This Criminal Revision Application is allowed.
Decision
Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. (Ambuj Nath, J.) Saurabh Uploaded