Sunil Chauhan, Son of Late Suresh Nonia, Resident of E-Block, Sector-II, Quarter No. 348 v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 987 of 2015 ------ Sunil Chauhan, Son of Late Suresh Nonia, Resident of E-Block, Sector-II, Quarter No. 348, Bhuli, P.O. and P.S. – Bhuli, District - Dhanbad. .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Smt. Nisha Devi, W/o Sunil Chauhan, D/o Shri Suresh Chauhan, Resident of Bhelatand, Dhaiya, VIP Colony, P.O. – Nagnagar, P.S. – Barwadda, District – Dhanbad. .... .... Opp. Parties ------ Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------ For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P. No. 2
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P. : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate. ------ JUDGMENT CAV On Dated- 03.04.2024 Pronounced On 28.06.2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 19.11.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2014, whereby and whereunder, the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.03.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 1713 of 2009, whereby the petitioner was held guilty for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year along with fine of Rs. 3,000/- with default stipulation, has been dismissed. Page 1 of 6 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the complainant was married with the present petitioner on 27.02.2001 and the complainant went to her matrimonial house and were passing their conjugal life happily and after some time the petitioner subjected the complainant to cruelty by means of physical and mental torture. It is further alleged that after the birth of female baby, the petitioner started ill treatment upon the complainant and also made unlawful demand of Rs. One lakh. The petitioner regularly assaulted the complainant and also drove out the complainant from her matrimonial house with her child. It is also alleged that the petitioner refused to keep the complainant with him. Hence, complaint case was lodged. 4. After taking cognizance for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C., the learned trial court proceeded for trial against the petitioner on account of denial from charges leveled against him. In course of trial, altogether three witnesses were examined by the complainant. 5. The case of defence was denial of charge and false implication. After conclusion of trial, petitioner was held guilty and sentenced for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. as stated above, which has been upheld by the learned appellate court in Cr. Appeal No. 55 of 2014, which is being assailed in this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that both the courts below committed grave error of law in holding the petitioner Page 2 of 6 guilty for the offence under Section 498A of I.P.C. There is no whisper that any illegal demand of money was ever asked by the petitioner from the victim or her parents and she was not pressurized and harassed for its fulfillment. There was very cordial relationship between husband and wife and they were blessed with a female child, but due to quarrelsome nature, she voluntarily left her matrimonial home and never joined the company of her husband, inspite of several attempts made by him. There is no specific day and time when the victim was ill-treated, tortured mentally or physically by the petitioner and on which day, she was driven away from her matrimonial home. No injury report showing physical assault has been brought on record. No circumstance has been proved showing any grave conduct by the petitioner, which was likely to drive her to commit suicide or was dangerous to her life or limb, there was no evidence at all to prove cruelty alleged to be committed against the complainant by the petitioner. No specific overt act constituting the offence under Section 498A of I.P.C. has been proved and no incriminating circumstances were put to the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C., which caused grave injustice. 7. It is further submitted that marriage was alleged to be solemnized in the year 2001, but the complaint case was lodged after eight years of alleged marriage without proving any instance of cruelty meted with the complainant. Therefore, the impugned Page 3 of 6 judgment / order suffers from perversity and not tenable under law and requires interference by way of this revision. 8. In the alternative, it is pleaded that after judgment of appellate court, the petitioner surrendered on 17.06.2015 and was directed to be released from custody vide order dated 14.10.2015 and ultimately released on 17.10.2015, as such, he remained in custody for about four months. Since the commencement of trial, about 15 years has elapsed and petitioner has been sufficiently punished in this case. Therefore, petitioner may be released on sentence of imprisonment already undergone, instead of sentence inflicted by the learned trial court. 9. On the other hand, learned APP appearing for the State assisted by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that there are concurrent findings of fact establishing the guilt of the petitioner for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. which is based upon proper appreciation of evidence adduced by prosecution and as such, requires no interference by way of this revision, which is fit to be dismissed. So far quantum of sentence is concerned, in the circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, appropriate order may be passed. 10. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgments and order passed by the learned trial court and the appellate court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of the Page 4 of 6 respective parties. It appears that both the courts below after analyzing and appreciating the evidence adduced by the complainant and the defence have arrived at conclusion that the complainant is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. It is also established that after marriage, complainant was physically assaulted and tortured and also subjected to mental cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of money of Rs. 1,00,000/- and ultimately, she was driven out along with her minor daughter from the matrimonial home. Therefore, there is no reasonable ground to interfere with the findings of conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. 11. So far quantum of sentence is concerned, the petitioner has already undergone about four months imprisonment after judgment of the criminal appeal and during pendency of the revision, which appears to be sufficient punishment for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. 12. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence already undergone by the petitioner appears to be sufficient punishment. Therefore, impugned judgment of conviction of the petitioner is hereby upheld with modification in sentence to the extent that instead of awarding R.I. of one year along with fine of Rs. 3,000/- as awarded by learned trial court and affirmed by learned appellate court, the petitioner is sentenced for the Page 5 of 6 imprisonment already undergone for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC. 13. Accordingly, this revision petition is disposed of maintaining the conviction of the petitioner with modification in the sentence as stated above. 14. Petitioner is on bail, as such, he shall be discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties shall also be discharged. 15. 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 : 28/06/2024 Sunil/-NAFR Page 6 of 6