Lalit Bhagat v. The State of Jharkhand

passed by Shri Vishnu Kant Sahay, the learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2011, whereby and whereunder, the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the petitioner passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga in G.R. No.417 of 2005 (T.R. No.61 of 2011), under which the petitioner has been held guilty for the offences under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and directed to undergo R.I. for 3 years has been upheld with modification in sentence, which was reduced from 3 years R.I. to 1 year R.I.

2. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the informant-Pramila Devi was married to the present petitioner on 08.05.1998 and she started living at her matrimonial home. After sometime, her husband and in-laws started demanding Rs.10,000/- cash and one motorcycle as additional dowry, which could not be fulfilled by the father of the informant then the present 2 Criminal Revision No.962 of 2015 petitioner and other family members started abusing and assaulting the informant and threatened to solemnize second marriage of the petitioner, if the demand is not fulfilled. It is further alleged that during the state of pregnancy, she was ousted from her matrimonial home and she returned to her parental home where she gave birth to a female child namely Poonam Kumari. Again, on 8th July, 2011, on the occasion of Rath yatra, due to intervention of local prestigious villagers, the matter was settled and the informant was sent to her matrimonial home but she was again ousted with direction that unless, the aforesaid demand was not fulfilled, she would not be allowed to live in the matrimonial home. Accordingly, on the basis of Complaint No.85 of 2005, the FIR was registered on direction of learned CJM, Lohardaga through the order under section 156(3) of Cr.PC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and charges were read over and explained to him along with other co-accused persons for the offences under section 498A of IPC and Sections 3/4 of D.P. Act, wherein he did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried and after conclusion of trial, the present petitioner has been held guilty and was sentenced as stated above but other co-accused namely Lalo Bhaktai, Lilo Devi and Jagarnath Bhagat were acquitted. The appellate court has also upheld the conviction of the petitioner, which has been assailed in this revision.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the courts below have failed to properly appreciate the case in right perspective and recorded perverse findings which are not sustainable under law and is fit to be set aside. 3 Criminal Revision No.962 of 2015

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that learned courts below have failed to appreciate the following points:- (i) The fact that the informant and petitioner have led their conjugal life happily under a cordial relationship for about 6 years and a female child was born out of their wedlock. There is bald allegation of demand of Rs.10,000/- cash and one motorcycle but no consequent harassment and torture is specifically alleged to be meted out against the informant has been proved, even the date, year, time and place of the aforesaid demand has also not been brought on record. (ii) There may be some matrimonial dispute and scuffle due to domestic work but that is not sufficient grounds to attract the provision under section 498A of IPC. The acts as alleged in the complaint against the petitioner does not meet any ingredients for the offences under section 498A of IPC and on the basis of same evidence, other co-accused persons have been acquitted extending benefits of doubt. The petitioner has been convicted simply because, he happens to be husband of the informant and no concrete materials have been brought against the petitioner showing that he is exclusively liable for the offences under section 498A of IPC. Moreover, the petitioner and other co-accused persons have been acquitted from the charges under sections 3/4 of D.P. Act (iii) The petitioner and his family members have always tried to restore the matrimonial peace and harmony but the complainant/informant herself failed to adjust with the family members of the petitioner and she is solely responsible for all state of affairs. 4 Criminal Revision No.962 of 2015

5. In the factual background as proved in this case, it was a fit case wherein the petitioner might have been extended the benefit of section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act but both the courts below without recording any special reasons have denied to extend the benefit of section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner to which he deserves.

6. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State assisted by learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 have vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and has submitted that there is concrete findings about the guilt of the petitioner for the offences under section 498A of IPC. There is no material illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the learned courts below, which is based upon proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidences adduced in this case by the respective parties. There is no merit in this revision, which is fit to be dismissed.

7. For the better appreciation of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, the relevant provision of section 498A of IPC is extracted as under:- 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 gave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or 5 Criminal Revision No.962 of 2015 (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.]

8. The above provision was inserted by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act,

1983. Before the insertion of the section, such cases of cruelty were dealt with by general provisions such as assault, grievous hurt etc,. This section has opened the doors of justice for women who suffers cruelty at the hands of her husband or his relatives. The offence under this section is cognizance, non-bailable and non-compoundable in nature. The explanation appended to the sections also defines the meaning of cruelty.

9. In the instant case from the very perusal of the judgment of both courts below, it is crystal clear that the complainant was married to the petitioner in the year 1998 and she started residing at her matrimonial home along with her husband and other relatives. Just after few months, the petitioner started demanding Rs.10,000/- cash and a motorcycle, which was not given at the time of marriage as additional dowry and due to non-fulfillment of which, the informant was abused, taunted, tormented and was subjected to physical assault using slaps and fists by the present petitioner. It is also proved by the prosecution that the father of the victim along with some prestigious local villagers conveyed a panchayat and again in the year 2005, the victim went to reside at her matrimonial home and she was also blessed with a female child. Thereafter, again she was tortured and tormented and the aforesaid demand was repeated by the present petitioner and finally she was ousted from her matrimonial home. The testimony of the victim-cum-informant(PW 2) has not been shaken during her cross-examination rather has been 6 Criminal Revision No.962 of 2015 corroborated by other witnesses, albeit they happen to be close relatives of the informant, however, that itself is not sufficient to discard their testimonies.

10. It appears that both courts below have brought under notice the facts and circumstances which are not in favour of the present petitioner, who was the main beneficiary of having motorcycle and such type of demand cannot be imputed against the mother-in-law and father-in-law. Hence, they were extended the benefits of doubt. The case of present petitioner in pari-materia cannot be set at the same footing with the in-laws. It is quite apparent that due to the willful conduct of the petitioner, not only the informant but also a baby child has been victimized. Under such circumstances, giving the benefit of provision of section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner does not appear to be conscionable.

11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and no merits in this revision, which stands dismissed.

12. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the concerned trial court within two months from the date of receipt of this order for sustaining the remaining period of sentence imposed upon him.

13. Pending I.As, if any, are disposed of accordingly.

14. Let the copy of this order along with record of trial court be sent back for information and needful. Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi Date: 15/ 05 /2024 Pappu/- N.A.F.R. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)