Pramod Kumar Chauhan @ Pramod Kumar Chouhan, S/o Ram Sundar Nonia, R/o Qtr. No v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Geeta Devi W/o Pramod Kumar Chauhan, D/o Arjun
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1684 of 2017 Pramod Kumar Chauhan @ Pramod Kumar Chouhan, S/o Ram Sundar Nonia, R/o Qtr. No. THQ/16-17, Dhori, P.O. & P.S. Bermo, Dist, Bokaro …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Geeta Devi W/o Pramod Kumar Chauhan, D/o Arjun Chouhan, R/o BDO office, near Circus Maidan, P.O. Dhori, P.S. Bermo, District Bokaro ……Opposite Parties ….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate Mr. Soumitra Baroi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the O.P. No.2 : Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate ---------- PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ----- JUDGMENT C.A.V. On 16.05.2024 Pronounced On: 24 .06.2024 1. The instant Criminal Revision has been filed challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the Judgment dated 20.09.2017 passed by learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 148 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the learned Appellate Court has been pleased to dismiss the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.07.2017 passed by learned
Legal Reasoning
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad in connection with G.R. Case No. 4731 of 2014 whereby the said trial court was pleased to convict the petitioner and sentenced them u/s 498(A) IPC for R.I. of 1 year and payment of fine of Rs. 1000 with default stipulation. 2. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the informant/opposite party no.2 was married with present petitioner in the year 2009 and her vidai took place in the month of October 2010 on the occasion of Durgapuja. It is alleged that after few days of marriage present petitioner and his family members raised demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- and a motorcycle as additional dowry. The informant protested against the said demand on the ground of paucity of fund and poverty of her father and mother and whatever they could give has already been presented at the time of marriage. It is alleged that due to non-fulfillment of the above demand the informant was subjected to cruelty. She was solitary confined in a room without supplying her food and other necessities. Any how she informed to her brother about the above said demand raised by her husband and in-laws then in the month of March 2011 and July 2011, Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively were paid by her brother Ratan Chauhan to her in-laws in presence of her husband. It is alleged that after some days again she was forced and compelled to bring a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two Lacs). Thereafter her family members came to her matrimonial home and attempted to settle the dispute regarding payment of additional dowry and torture meted out with the informant but it was of no consequence rather they were also threatened to be killed at the instance of present petitioner and his family members. It is further alleged that in the month of May, 2 Cr. Revision No. 1684 of 2017 2014 the physical and mental torture increased against the informant then she went to Mahila Police Station and again matter was settled through police intervention and present petitioner brought the informant to his work place at Dhanbad where both started living in a rented quarter but after some days her husband left her in the said rented room and went to his parental house and never returned and visited with the informant. In the meantime a male child was also born to the informant. In the aforesaid compelling circumstances she lodged this case against her husband and his other relatives which was registered as Putki (Munidih) Case No. 130 of 2014 dated 15.10.2014 for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 498(A) and Section 34 IPC. After investigation charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner and his family members for the aforesaid offences. 3. The learned trial court after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties held the present petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. of one year alongwith fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation. The petitioner, Pramod Kumar Chauhan preferred an Criminal Appeal No. 148 of 2017 before the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad which was heard and decided by learned Additional Sessions Judge, who has upheld and confirmed the conviction and sentence of petitioner passed by learned trial 3 Cr. Revision No. 1684 of 2017 court and dismissed the appeal which has been assailed in this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that petitioner is by profession a journalist (patrakar). From the very beginning his wife was not co-operating and making adjustment with parents and other family members of the petitioner and just after one month of marriage she started raising quarrel disturbing the family peace. The story of demand of dowry Rs. 1,00,000/- cash and a motorcycle as well as cruel treatment with the informant is false and fabricated story. It is further submitted that the petitioner was fed up by the continuous and frequent disturbance created by the informant which could not be resolved by any means then prior to lodging of this case by the informant the petitioner has instituted matrimonial suit no. 221 of 2014 before the Family Judge, Bokaro and as a counter blast to the aforesaid divorce case instituted by petitioner against his wife she lodged FIR against all the family members concocting false story of demand of dowry and consequent torture meted out to her at the hands of present petitioner and his family members. It is further submitted that except the brother and close relative of informant no other independent witnesses have been examined by prosecution to corroborate her testimony and on the basis of same and identical evidence other co-accused persons of this case have been acquitted by the learned trial court itself. 4 Cr. Revision No. 1684 of 2017 Therefore, conviction of present petitioner for the same offence on the basis of same evidence is illegal and unwarranted. In this regard he has placed reliance upon reported Judgment in 2023 Live Law (SC) 782 Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi versus State of Gujarat passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1012 of 2022 dated September 13, 2023. 5. On the other hand, learned APP for the State assisted with learned counsel for informant Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate has vehemently
Legal Reasoning
opposed the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that in view of direct and specific allegation against the petitioner constituting an offence under Section 498(A) I.P.C. he has been rightly convicted and sentenced. Reconsideration on facts and evidence led in this case is not warranted under revisional jurisdiction of this court. Concurrent findings recorded by learned trial court as well as appellate court does not suffer from any perversity. Both the court below have consistently considered the plea taken by the present petitioner in the present revision and rightly declined to accept the same. The plea of parity taken by the petitioner is not applicable in this case in view of the fact that the petitioner is husband of the victim lady and there was specific allegation of demand of cash and motorcycle as additional dowry. The petitioner undertook before the Mahila Police Station to keep his wife with all dignity and honor along with small 5 Cr. Revision No. 1684 of 2017 kid but again left her repeating his demand and subjecting her to cruelty in a rented quarter and went away. As a consequence of the conduct of petitioner the victim lady is still undergoing innumerable agony of life with a small child and any how surviving in the society without any aid and assistance extended by the present petitioner and his divorce petition has also been dismissed. Therefore, this Revision has no merits and fit to be dismissed. 6. I have given anxious consideration to the aforesaid points of argument raised on behalf of both side and also perused the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the learned trial court and the appellate court. It appears that the witnesses examined by prosecution are brother and relative of victim as well as victim herself who herself has consistently proved her case. In her cross examination nothing has been elicited by defence to discard or disbelieve her testimony. It is right that in a family dispute seeking corroboration from any independent source amounts to increase in trauma sustained by the victim within the four wall of the matrimonial house. The story projected by prosecution merely goes to show that the victim has been forced to sustain a miserable life with a small child due to non-fulfillment of illegal demand raised by the present petitioner. The defence plea of the petitioner about quarrelsome nature of his wife and creation of ugly scene in the family has not been proved through any cogent and reliable 6 Cr. Revision No. 1684 of 2017 evidence. Divorce petition of the petitioner has also been dismissed. In view of specific and peculiar allegations against the present petitioner which do not appear to be similar and identical with the rest of the accused persons who have extended benefit of doubt and acquitted. The specific and independent acts of the petitioner himself constituting the offence under Section 498(A) IPC has been distinctly proved by the prosecution. Therefore there is no discrimination and the principles propounded by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi (Supra) do not apply in this case. 7. In view of aforesaid discussions and reasons, I do not find any merits in this Revision which stands dismissed. 8. Let the copy of this order alongwith trial court record be sent to the court below for information and taking necessary action. Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi Date: 24 /06 /2024 Rajnish/- N.A.F.R. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 7 Cr. Revision No. 1684 of 2017