Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 640 (JHR)

Mukund Chandra Pandit v. State of Jharkhand

2009-04-29

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2009
JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar, J Both the Cr. Revision No. 256 of 2007 and Cr. Revision No. 410 of 2007 arise out of the same case i.e. P.C.R. Case No. 404 of 2005 and both the orders have been passed by S.D.J.M., Dumka, whereby the learned S.D.J.M., Dumka refused the petition of the petitioner, Sunita Jha for discharge by his order dated 9.3.2007 and also the petition for discharge filed by petitioner, Mukund Chandra Pandit on the same day, for which Cr. Revision No. 256 of 2007 has been filed. Since both the revisions arise out of the same impugned judgment, hence they were heard together. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sunita Jha that she was not a member of the family of complainant, Smt. Asha Rani Pal’s in-law and as such no case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is made out against her. On behalf of the petitioner, Mukund Chandra Pandit, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in absence of the evidence of the complainant herself in Court the order taking cognizance against the petitioner is bad in law and fit to be set aside and hence the order refusing to discharge him is also bad and fit to be aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the complainant, Asha Rani Pal has submitted that although the petitioner, Sunita Jha she was not a member of the family of her husband, but when she came with her husband and started living in her husband’s house they tortured her while living there as wife and husband. In that view of the matter, she became member of the family of the husband of the complainant and as such Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is fully attracted and the learned trial court has rightly taken cognizance against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mukund Chandra Pandit that the complainant has not examined herself as witness in Court, is equally baseless. It is further submitted that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mukund Chandra Pandit that the complainant has not examined herself as witness in Court, is equally baseless. Since complaint petition filed by the petitioner itself will show as also it will appear from the Lower Court Record that the complainant was examined in Court under Solemn Affirmation and thereafter two witnesses were examined and Court found a prima facie case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against both the petitioners and as such the prayer for discharge of both the accused were rightly rejected by the trial court and it requires no interference by this Court and as such both the revision applications are fit to be dismissed. 4. After hearing both the parties and after considering the evidences available on record, I find that as per Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code for making out a charge, it is necessary that the accused should be a member of the family of the husband of the complainant. Section 498A reads as under: Section 498A : 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. Now in the light of the above definition given under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, it has been seen as to whether the petitioner, Sunita Jha comes within the ambit of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code or not? 5. From perusal of the F.I.R., which shows that the complainant has alleged in her complaint petition at para 5 that on 17.7.2005 her husband-petitioner, Mukund Chandra Pandit came to his house at Village Simla along with his lover Sunita Jha and when the complainant asked as to why he has brought her there then he said that from today she will live as his wife and if she has got any objection then she may go to her father’s house in order to bring Rs. 1 lakh and a motorcycle from her father and thereafter the petitioner and others assaulted her and confined her in a room. 1 lakh and a motorcycle from her father and thereafter the petitioner and others assaulted her and confined her in a room. Thereafter, she informed her father on 24.7.2005 and her father came along with others then both the accused persons became furious and ousted her from the house and assaulted her and her father also. 6. The complainant, Smt. Asha Rani Pal was examined on solemn affirmation on 12.8.2005 she again stated that on 17th July, 2005 her husband-accused, Mukund Chandra Pandit came from Jamtara to his village Simla along with petitioner, Sunita Jha and when she objected he stated that she may go to her father’s house in order to bring Rs. 1 lakh and a motorcycle and she was assaulted by both of them. Accused, Mukund Chandra Pandit said that Sunit Jha will now live with him. On information her father came on 24.7.2005 then all the accused assaulted her and her father by confining them in a room. She further stated that accused, Sunita Jha by force took away her golden churi from her hand and also snatched her golden chain from her neck and payal from her leg and lastly ousted her from the house. 7. Thus, from the statement of the complainant in court as also her statement in the complaint petition, it is apparent that the petitioner, Sunita Jha on 17th July, 2005 came along with petitioner, Mukund Chandra Pandit from Jamtara to village Simla and started living with accused, Mukund Chandra Pandit as his wife and on 24.7.2005 stated under solemn affirmation by the complainant that Sunita Jha and Mukund Chandra Pandit both assaulted the complainant and accused, Sunita Jha snatched golden churi, golden chain and payal from her body. 8. Thus, it is clear from the evidence of the complainant under solemn affirmation that Sunita Jha was living as wife of the complainant’s husband Mukund Chandra Pandit in her house and thereby she became a member of the family of her husband and there is direct allegation of assault and torture against accused, Sunita Jha and Mukund Chandra Pandit and as such the court has rightly found a prima facie case against both the petitioners and took cognizance under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The witnesses examined in Court, namely, P.W.1, Kanhai Pal also stated the same thing in para 4 and Mukti Pal, who was examined as witness no. 2., stated the said fact in para 3 and 4 of her evidence that accused, Sunita Jha came with accused, Mukund Chandra Pandit and started living in his house as his wife and both of them assaulted her daughter and asked her to bring 1 lakh and a motorcycle and ousted her from the house, so the witnesses have also fully supported the version given in the complaint petition, all the evidences make out a prima facie case against both the petitioners under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and the Court rightly refused to discharge them vide its order dated 9.3.2007. 9. I find no merit in the revision applications hence both the revision applications are dismissed.