Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 641 (JHR)

Md. Azad Hussain v. State of Jharkhand

2009-04-29

D.K.SINHA

body2009
JUDGMENT D.K. Sinha, J.Present criminal revision is directed against the judgment of conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and order of sentence passed against the petitioners, whereby each of them has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.1,000/-with default stipulation, passed by the S.D.J.M., Hazaribag on 10.8.1995 in T.R. No.506 of 2005 arising out of Hazaribag (Sadar) P.S. Case No.14 of 2002 and the judgment passed in Cr. Appeal No.139 of 2005 on 17.5.2006, upholding the conviction and sentence of the petitioners by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Hazaribag. 2. Fact of the case, in short, giving rise to the present revision is that the Complainant-Opposite Party No. 2 Yasmin Khatoon filed a Complaint Case No. 986 of 2001 on 3.11.2001 before the C.J.M., Hazaribag which was referred under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure giving rise to Hazaribag (Sadar) P.S. Case No.14 of 2002 registered on 8.1.2002 for the alleged offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against eight named accused persons including the petitioners. The Investigating Officer after investigation submitted chargesheet against all the eight accused persons for the alleged offence and they were put on trial. After trial five accused were acquitted, but the petitioners were convicted for the alleged charge but only under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Charge under Sections 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act could not be proved. Complainant was married to the Petitioner No.1 Md. Azad Hussain on 29.4.1997 and a sum of Rs.20,000/-was given in cash to the Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 on the eve of marriage in presence of the witnesses for arranging Barat etc. At the time of Roksadi, it was stated that ornaments and household articles were also given to the bridegroom. Petitioners are respectively the husband, the father-in-law and the mother-in-law of the Complainant-Opposite Party No.2. After few months of marriage, it was alleged that the petitioners started demanding Rs.30,000/-in cash on the allegation that parents of the Complainant had given old furniture and that the father of the Complainant though had promised to give Rs.30,000/-after the marriage, but without heed thereto. After birth of a child, the husband started neglecting Complainant and that other petitioners also joined in extending torture to her in various ways. After birth of a child, the husband started neglecting Complainant and that other petitioners also joined in extending torture to her in various ways. Whenever the Complainant used to raise the voice, she had been assaulted by the petitioners with fists and blows. Sometimes, she used to be put under confinement in a room stopping her food etc. It was further alleged that the petitioners had once attempted to kill her by pushing her in the well, but when she raised alarm, the villagers assembled there and rescued her. A panchayti was convened but the petitioners abstained from the panchayti. However, pressure was mounted upon the petitioners to keep the Complainant with all dignity and honour and for that, she lived in her matrimonial home for one and half months without any sort of trouble, but again they reiterated their demand of Rs.30,000/-. On 28.10.2001, she was brutally assaulted and when the accused persons attempted to strangulate, she escaped and came to her parental home and had been living there since then. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the judgment passed by the S.D.J.M., Hazaribag as well as by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Hazaribag in Cr. Appeal No.139 of 2005 on the ground that though the witnesses produced and examined on behalf of the prosecution had unequivocally supported the prosecution case, but the Trial Court did not pay heed to the defence case of the petitioners that the Complainant-Opposite Party No.2 did not prefer to live in the village as she was brought up in the township like Hazaribag and did not enjoy the rural life. After marriage she was brought to her matrimonial home at village Bhelwara where no civic amenity was available, to which she was used to and she fled away on 2.11.2001 from her matrimonial home without permission and information. 4. The specific defence was that the Petitioner No.3 Mehrun Nisa when visited the parental home of the Complainant to bring her back, Minhaz Ansari and others refused to send her back to her matrimonial home and assaulted the Petitioner No.3 causing serious injuries and for that a criminal case was instituted at the police station against the Complainant and others. The specific defence was that the Petitioner No.3 Mehrun Nisa when visited the parental home of the Complainant to bring her back, Minhaz Ansari and others refused to send her back to her matrimonial home and assaulted the Petitioner No.3 causing serious injuries and for that a criminal case was instituted at the police station against the Complainant and others. Petitioners had adduced evidence by producing three defence witnesses including the Petitioner No.3 who deposed as D.W.-3 and narrated the occurrence as to how she was assaulted at the hands of the Complainant and others in her parental home when she had been there to bring the Complainant back to her matrimonial home. Petitioners had produced several documents in support of their counter allegation. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-4 though were not interrogated as their statements were not recorded by the Investigating Officer in course of investigation under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and hence, their statements before the Trial Court, for the first time, was of no consequence and in this regard, learned counsel relied upon a decision, reported in 1985 East Cr. Cases 445. 6. I find from the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Hazaribag in Cr. Appeal No.139 of 2005 that statements of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-4 though were recorded by the Investigating Officer in course of investigation jointly which was not appreciated. The joint statements of several witnesses recorded by the police do not inspire confidence as it shows slip shod conduct of the Investigating Officer that he did not investigate diligently rather leisurely and that the statements of such witnesses do not inspire confidence. However the Courts held that the witnesses aforesaid were consistent in their statements before the Trial Court for the alleged charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and hence they were reliable. 7. Appellate Court observed and found that the witnesses produced and adduced on behalf of the prosecution supported the prosecution case, subject to minor omission. The witnesses were consistent that the petitioners had demanded money after few months of the marriage and also perpetuated cruelty both mentally and physically upon the Complainant. She was forced to lead a life of seclusion from her husband i.e. the Petitioner No.1 herein and was deprived of her conjugal life. The witnesses were consistent that the petitioners had demanded money after few months of the marriage and also perpetuated cruelty both mentally and physically upon the Complainant. She was forced to lead a life of seclusion from her husband i.e. the Petitioner No.1 herein and was deprived of her conjugal life. Evidence produced and adduced on behalf of the petitioners before the Trial Court including the evidence that a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also initiated against the Complainant, her parents and brothers speaks volume about strained relationship prevailing between the parties adversely affecting the mental peace which was a kind of torture. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court came to the consistent conclusion that the Complainant had been harassed by the petitioners in various ways and that Complainant along with her parents and brothers were implicated in different criminal cases and dragged to the proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was rightly held that dragging of a woman in vexatious litigation also amounts to harassment and torture. Ingredients required for attracting offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, in the facts and circumstances of the case, were met out by the prosecution and therefore, I find and observe that the petitioners failed to show any ground in the criminal revision so as to call for interference in the judgment of their conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and order of sentence passed against them. 8. In the facts and circumstances, I do not find merit in this criminal revision and hence it is rejected. 9. Learned counsel pointed out that the petitioner No.1 Md. Azad Hussain has already served out the period of sentence for six months imprisonment as awarded against his conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 10. In the circumstances, if the petitioner Md. Azad Hussain has actually served out the specified period of imprisonment and paid the fine amount as submitted on his behalf by the learned counsel, he is directed to be set at liberty at once in Hazaribag (Sadar) P.S. Case No.14 of 2002, corresponding to G.R. No.54 of 2002, if not wanted in any other case. 11. As regards the other petitioners Md. 11. As regards the other petitioners Md. Kamruddin and Mehrun Nisa, the A.P.P. pointed out that they were admitted to interim bail at the initial stage during pendency of this criminal revision after detention of about a month, in such situation both the petitioners are directed to surrender in the Trial Court or successor within 20 (Twenty) days of this order to serve out remaining period of sentence as also pay the fine amount, failing which the court concerned would take appropriate steps under law for their arrest and put to prison.