Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 424 (PAT)

Ram Deo Paswan v. State Of Bihar

2001-05-11

A.K.SINHA

body2001
Judgment A.K.Sinha, J. 1. This revision application has been directed against the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1998 by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger by which he confirmed the order of conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Sec. 498(A) of the I.P.C. who was convicted by the trial Court Sec. 498(A) of the I.P.C. along with four other accused persons and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 months. The learned appellate Court, however, acquitted four persons who are in-laws but maintained the conviction of the petitioner who happened to be the husband of the complainant. 2. The complainant Pratima Devi filed a case against her husband and in-laws under Secs. 323, 379 and 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code alleging therein that her husband and in-laws used to demand Rs. 25,000 as dowry and due to non-fulfilment of the demand they used to assault and torture her and she was driven out by her husband. 3. It is true that there is finding of facts by two Courts and the scope of revisional Court to enter into the domain of facts is very limited. But if there has been failure of justice due to non-consideration of the material facts and circumstances of the case, the revisional Court can interfere into the facts so as to do justice in the case. 4. In the instant case the admitted position is that the other four accused persons have been acquitted of charge on the same set of evidence although there was allegation against those four accused also regarding demand of dowry, torture and assault. 5. It is manifest from the materials on record that the petitioner had instituted a case against his in-laws for restitution of conjugal right at Asansol Court before lodging the case by the complainant. It has also been admitted by the complainant herself that efforts were made by her father to get the case withdrawn and there was a Panchayati also and in that Panchayati the complainants father agreed to pay Rs. 5,000 to the accused persons who took away the complainant on Vidai giving assurance to keep her properly but the complainant was made to stay at Dharmshala and the accused persons drove her out from the Dharmshala saying that unless the demand of Rs. 25,000 is fulfilled they will not keep her. 5,000 to the accused persons who took away the complainant on Vidai giving assurance to keep her properly but the complainant was made to stay at Dharmshala and the accused persons drove her out from the Dharmshala saying that unless the demand of Rs. 25,000 is fulfilled they will not keep her. Thereafter the complainant came to her fathers place and this complaint was filed in the Court. 6. The possibility that the complaint case was filed by he complainant at the instance of her father as counter blast to the case instituted by the accused-petitioner at Asansol Court for restitution of conjugal right cannot totally be overlooked and the trial Court or the appellate Court did not consider this aspect of the matter at all. Apart from that the complainant had stated in unambiguous term that even if her husband wants to take her back to his house and gives assurance to keep her properly, she will not go and she want to live separately. It is, therefore, apparent that on the one hand the accused-petitioner wants to keep his wife for which he took legal step by filing a suit for restitution of conjugal right but the complainant is not willing to live with him at any cost. It is the definite case of the defence that the complainant does not want to live with accused-petitioner because she is entangled with her brother-in-law. in the face of the emphatic denial on the part of the complainant to live with the petitioner whose anxiety can be appreciated by the fact that he filed a suit for restitution of conjugal right in Court, there appears something fishy in the matter and the possibility cannot be ruled out that the petitioner has been falsely implicated for the reasons that he took legal steps to recover his wife and there may be some other matter on account of which she does not want to live with her husband. The Court has not to be swayed by the statement made by any witness in Court rather the statement made by the witness has to be judged and appreciated in the background of all attending facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The Court has not to be swayed by the statement made by any witness in Court rather the statement made by the witness has to be judged and appreciated in the background of all attending facts and circumstances of the case. 7. It would appear that both the Courts below were swayed by the plain statement made by the complainant who appears to be quite interested witness and has not taken into consideration the other background as also the attending facts and circumstances of the case resulting in faulty decision. It was pointed out to me that the appellate Court has observed in his judgment that there is no specific allegation against the accused persons about the act of cruelty and there is general allegation of assault and not providing food to the complainant But, curiously enough the appellate Court acquitted the other four accused of the case and convicted the petitioner merely on the ground that he happened to be the husband of the complainant which is no ground for convicting him unless the specific allegation is there and is proved by solid and cogent evidence worth placing reliance. It may also be pointed out that the Courts below had believed the solitary evidence of P.W. 4 who is none else but the complainant. It is no doubt true that conviction can be based on the solitary evidence of a witness if the quality of evidence is trustworthy and inspire confidence. Nevertheless, the Court seeks for some corroboration in order to safely base conviction on the sole testimony of a witness. However, in the instant case, seeing the conduct of the complainant who has expressed in clear words that she does not want to live with her husband, the Court should have made an attempt to make an enquiry as to the reason for her denial to live with her husband because on lady would like to desert her husband unless there is some compelling reason for that. If the Courts below would have taken pains to examine all the facts and circumstances of the case, specially, the defence version, it could have reached to a different conclusion than that arrived at by holding the accused-petitioner guilty for the offence under Sec. 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. 8. If the Courts below would have taken pains to examine all the facts and circumstances of the case, specially, the defence version, it could have reached to a different conclusion than that arrived at by holding the accused-petitioner guilty for the offence under Sec. 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and after carefully examining the evidence on record, I am of the view that the possibility of false implication of the accused-petitioner appears to be more probable than his guilt. In such situation, the petitioner should, at least, have been given the benefit of doubt instead of convicting him on the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant which is not free from doubt or suspicion. Accordingly, I am of the view that the prosecution had not proved the charge against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubts. 9. In the result, this revision application is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner is set aside and he is discharged from the liability of the bail bonds.