JUDGMENT This Criminal appeal is for setting aside the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24/4/2000 passed in S.T.No. 60 of 1997 /20 of 1997 by the 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Godda, whereby the appellant No.1 is convicted under section 376 and 498A I.P.C. and appellant Nos.2, 3 and 4 are convicted under section 498A I.P.C . only and the appellant No.1 is sentenced for Nine years R.I. for the offence under section 376 I.P.C. and further sentenced for one year R.I. for the offence under section 498A I.P.C. and both the sentences shall run concurrently. Other appellants Nos. 2 to 4 are sentenced for One year R.I. for the offence under section 498 I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case in short is that the victim /complaint/ informant namely Bibi Taslima Khatoon filed a petition of complaint alleging therein that the appellant No.1 Mufti Abdul Rahim was her teacher and during that course he on an assurance of getting married went in sexual union with her as result of which she became pregnant. When she requested him to merry her, he refused. On his refusal a Panchayati was held in the village and thereafter he married the complainant and they lived together as husband and wife in the house of the appellant No.1. It is further alleged in the complainant petition that the other accused persons started ill behaving with her even they assaulted her. Thereafter the accused appellant No.1 went away from the village and sent a Talaknama through the village head man of the community. Further case of the complainant is that the other accused persons from the very inception of the marriage, maltreated and beaten her and also taken her ornaments. She ultimately left her matrimonial home. 3. The complainant/ informant filed the aforesaid complaint petition on 20..4.1986 before the C.J.M. Godda, who had sent it to the concerned police station for lodging a first information report. The police lodged an FIR against the accused persons under 420 and 498A IPC. But after investigation the I.O. has submitted the charge sheet under section 376, 420,498A and 379 I.P.C. Thereafter the case is committed to the court of Sessions. 4. The accused persons have pleaded innocent and their false implication in this case. The prosecution has examined Nine Witnesses to prove its case. Among them P.W.1 Md. But after investigation the I.O. has submitted the charge sheet under section 376, 420,498A and 379 I.P.C. Thereafter the case is committed to the court of Sessions. 4. The accused persons have pleaded innocent and their false implication in this case. The prosecution has examined Nine Witnesses to prove its case. Among them P.W.1 Md. Ishlam brother of the victim, P.W. 4 Mostt.Salima mother of the victim, and P.W.5 Bibi Taslima Khatoon, victim girl herself. The other witnesses P.W.2 and 3 on the point of Panchayati P.W. 7 and 8 are tendered witnesses, P.W.6 is the Kazi of the Nikah, P.W.9 is the Doctor who examined the victim on 10.5.1996. 5. The trial court after examining the witnesses, found and held that the appellant No.1 is guilty under Sections 376 and 498A I.P.C. and further held that the appellant Nos. 2 to 4 are guilty under section 498A I.P.C. and sentenced them as stated above. 6. I have gone through the materials on record carefully. P.W.5 the victim girl has deposed that the appellant No.1 was her teacher and on his assurance that he will marry her, she used go to the accused and having sexual intercourse regularly. On his refusal of marriage, a Panchayati was held and thereafter he married the victim. The said marriage was proved by the P.W. 6 Kazi. 7. According to the Doctor evidence (P.W.9) the victim is aged about 17-18 years. From the evidence of the victim it is clear that the victim herself used to go to the room of the appellant and he used commit sexual intercourse with the victim regularly. As the victim who was consented party, the appellant cannot be held guilty for the offence under section 376 I.P.C. 8. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses it is revealed that from the very date of the marriage, she was subjected to harassment and maltreated at the hand of her husband. She was regularly tortured, beaten and abused by her husband Mufti Abdul Rahim. In view of this facts and circumstances in my opinion the charge under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code has been fully established against the accused Mufti Abdul Rahim beyond all reasonable doubt. 9. Regarding the appellant No. 2 Akash Ansari, the appellant No.3 Bibi Samina and appellant No.4 Md. In view of this facts and circumstances in my opinion the charge under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code has been fully established against the accused Mufti Abdul Rahim beyond all reasonable doubt. 9. Regarding the appellant No. 2 Akash Ansari, the appellant No.3 Bibi Samina and appellant No.4 Md. Alim Ansari who are convicted under section 498A I.P.C. by the trial court, I find there is no specific allegation of any torture stated either by the victim or by any of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, in my view the prosecution has failed to establish the charge under section 498A I.P.C. against these appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly the order of conviction and sentence passed against them are set aside and they are acquitted of the charge framed against them under section 498A I.P.C. As they are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. 10. As discussed earlier that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of section 376 I.P.C. and it has only proved the charge under Section 498A against the appellant No.1, therefore his conviction under section 498A is maintained and he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. 11. The learned counsel of the appellants submits that the appellant No.1, namely, Mufti Abdul Rahim was in jail custody for more than five years in this case. In view of this fact it is clear that the appellant No.1 was in jail custody for more than sentenced awarded to him. In the result, the appeal is allowed with respect to appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and they are acquitted and they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. With respect of the appellant No.1, as he has remained in the jail custody for more than sentence awarded to him as such he is also discharged from the liability of his bail bond. 12. In the result with the aforesaid modification, this appeal is partly allowed. (Jaya Roy,J. ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Dated: 19/02/2009 Anu/ N.A.F.R