Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 625 (JHR)

Jairam Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2011-07-11

D.K.SINHA

body2011
JUDGMENT D.K Sinha, J.- The instant Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment dated 2.4.2008 recorded by the Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2008 by which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded against the petitioners by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Porahat at Chaibasa in G.R. No. 3984 of 2000 corresponding to T.R. No. 285 of 2008 was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed. 2. All the petitioners were convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 406/ 498A of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigor. ous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation on each count. 3. The prosecution story in short was that the complainant-opposite paity No. 2 when presented a complaint bearing C. No. 4448 of 2000 before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata, it was referred to the Park Street Police Station under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. whereby Park Street P.S. Case No. 43 of 2000 was instituted against the accused persons. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 Rima Singh herein narrated in the complaint petition that she was married to the petitioner No. 1 Jairam Singh on 23.4.2000 as per Hindu rites and customs at her native village in Bihar and on the eve of marriage her father had given Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash to her father-in-law through Bank Draft besides, Rs. 30,000/- in cash being the cost of a motorcycle for her husband, Jairam Singh. Jewelleries of gold and silver were also given to the accused. She came to her matrimonial home in Kolkata on the next day of her marriage but she alleged that after seven days all her in-laws and husband put a demand of Rs. 3 lakhs to be asked from her father for purchasing a piece of land at Kolkata. In this connection she was assaulted by the petitioners several times accordingly she was subjected to physical and mental torture. The petitioners had attempted to commit her murder even by throttling her and also by setting her body on fire but she was rescued by the close door neighbours and finally after retaining Jewelleries and valuables, given to her on the eve of marriage, she was driven out from her matrimonial home. The petitioners had attempted to commit her murder even by throttling her and also by setting her body on fire but she was rescued by the close door neighbours and finally after retaining Jewelleries and valuables, given to her on the eve of marriage, she was driven out from her matrimonial home. The Investigating Officer after investigation of Park Street Case No. 436 of 2000 submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners under Sections 406/498A of the Indian Penal Code. However with the intervention and order of the Supreme Court of India, the case was transferred to the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Porahat at Chaibasa for trial. Altogether five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and the petitioner Jairam Singh produced himself as the defence witness whose statement was recorded as D.W. 1 4. Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, the learned Sr. Counsel submitted that P.W. 1 Kameshwar Prasad Singh was the father of the complainant, P.W. 2 Awadhesh Pandey was the friend of Kameshwar Prasad Singh, P.W. 3 was the complainant Rima Singh, P.W. 4 Sudhanshu Kumar Thakur had investigated the case and P.W. 5 Rabindra Nath Dutta was a formal witness during trial. Petitioner No. 1 Jairam Singh by producing himself as defence witness brought two documents before the court which were marked exhibits. P.W. 4 Sudhanshu Kumar Thakur and P.W. 5 Rabindra Nath Dutta were formal witnesses, whereas P.W.1 Kameshwar Prasad Singh father of the complainant-opposite party No.2 and P.W. 2 Awadhesh Pandey were the hearsay witnesses and therefore, the only material witness left out was the complainant herself. The learned Sr. Counsel submitted that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had consistently stated in the complaint petition that the petitioners tried to commit her murder by throttling and by setting her body on fire and that she was rescued by close door neighbours, curious enough, none of the close door neighbours was examined during trial and therefore, such part of the allegation of torture could not be substantiated. The trial court committed grave error in appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the witnesses who were not the eye witnesses except the complainant and convicted the petitioners without any legal evidence. The trial court committed grave error in appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the witnesses who were not the eye witnesses except the complainant and convicted the petitioners without any legal evidence. The complainant alleged that she was driven out by the accused persons in the evening of 16.9.2000 with her father but with the intervention of two neighbouring people, the accused petitioners allowed the complainant and her father to stay at the matrimonial home for the night and then she contacted her uncle Kameshwar Singh at Kolkata and informed him about the cruelty and torture being extended to her but neither the neighbours nor Kameshwar Singh could be produced and examined on behalf of the prosecution to substantiate the charge under Section 498A/406 IPC against the petitioners. 5. The learned Sr. Counsel further explained that as a matter of fact, a Matrimonial Suit No. 146 of 2000 was instituted by the husband-petitioner Jairam Singh seeking decree of divorce against the complainant-opposite party No.2 Rima Singh in which notice was issued to her on 19.8.2000 and in retaliation, having been aggrieved and in sequel to the Matrimonial Suit, she lodged the complaint before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata on 12.9.2000. The petitioner Jairam Singh had filed the Matrimonial Suit against his wife complainant seeking decree of divorce on the ground of her infidelity within four months of their marriage on detection that she was pregnant from before her marriage and the instant case was instituted after thought to mitigate the gravity of imputation which was found against her and in this manner she tried to dilute the allegation and by putting the petitioners on the back foot. The learned Sr. Counsel submitted that it was wholly unworthy to believe in the facts and circumstances that the petitioner No. 1 had ever made any demand of dowry or had ever inflicted any cruelty and injury physically or mentally. 6. The learned counsel further explained that the petitioner No. 1 was the husband of the complainant, petitioner No. 2 was the Bhaisur(elder brother of the husband) and the petitioner No. 3 was the father-in-law of the complainant. The petitioner No. 2 Mahesh Singh was not at all concerned with the family affairs of his younger brother and was also not the ultimately beneficiary of any kind of alleged demand if at all made by the husband petitioner No.1. The petitioner No. 2 Mahesh Singh was not at all concerned with the family affairs of his younger brother and was also not the ultimately beneficiary of any kind of alleged demand if at all made by the husband petitioner No.1. He was working as driver in the Police Department at Kolkata at the relevant time and the complainant with her husband stayed in the house of the petitioner for a brief period. No specific overt act was attributed against Mahesh Singh except omnibus allegations. The petitioner No.3 Ramayan Singh being the father-in-law of the complainant, was also not the beneficiary of the alleged demand of Rs. 3 lakhs for purchasing piece of land made by her husband. Similarly, allegation of physical and mental torture extended by him could not be substantiated by any other witnesses, as such, there was no material on the record against the father-in-law for his conviction under Section 406/498A of the Indian Penal Code. As regards the petitioner No. 1 husband, he has become the victim" and prey of odd circumstances, brought about by the wife complainant who carried misfortune for him. As a matter of fact she was carrying pregnancy much prior to the marriage and when this fact was detected the petitioner No. 1 sharply reacted for her infidelity and expressed that he was deceived by her parents and that she was not a virgin and was carrying pregnancy against the norms of Indian Civil Society. The husband petitioner No. 1 tried to find out the ways and means for the settlement but when he did not receive any cooperation, he filed a Matrimonial Suit for a decree of divorce on the ground of her infidelity and in retaliation a false case was instituted against the petitioners and they were convicted accordingly. 7. The learned Sr. counsel while explaining the defence of the petitioners submitted that it would be evident from the . 7. The learned Sr. counsel while explaining the defence of the petitioners submitted that it would be evident from the . statements of D.W. 1 Jairam Singh i.e. husband of the complainant that he had filed matrimonial suit for divorce before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kolkata on 16.8.2000 and proved the order-sheet of the said suit which was marked Ext.-A. He further proved the signature of Rima Singh complainant on the acknowledgement receipt of the notice which was served upon her and supported her signature by making endorsement of date 19.8.2000 and the same was marked Ext:-B. The complaint was admittedly filed much thereafter on 12.9.2000. I find from the cross-examination of D.W. 1, husband of the complainant that the Matrimonial Suit, which he filed before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kolkata, was also transferred to the Court of District Judge, Singhbhum West Chaibasa. This witness admitted that the divorce suit was dismissed by the District Judge, Singhbhum, West Chaibasa as it was found devoid of merit and the suit brought about for seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of infidelity of the complainant could not be proved and to my view putting question on the chastity and infidelity of the wife would come in the category of extending •cruelty. May be, the defence proved that the complaint was filed by the complainant after receipt of the notice of the Matrimonial Suit which was filed by the husband-petitioner for seeking a decree of divorce but on this ground alone it cannot be held that complainant had filed the complaint against the petitioners in retaliation and in sequel to the filing of Matrimonial Suit which was dismissed by the District Judge as having been found devoid of merit. During course of investigation Jewelleries, which were retained by the accused persons, were seized by the order of this Court and it were delivered to the complainant-opposite party No.2. Certain counterfoils of the bank drafts were exhibited before the trial court. The contents of the Ext.-4 series reflected that 5 counterfoils of the pay-in-slip of the draft of Rs. 30,000/- each drawn in favour of the accused-petitioner Ramayan Singh were seized by the police and one pay-in-slip Rs. 4,000/- was found drawn in favour of Ramayan Singh was also seized. All the counterfoils were proved by the P.W. 4, Investigating Officer which were marked Exts.-4/1 to 4/6. 30,000/- each drawn in favour of the accused-petitioner Ramayan Singh were seized by the police and one pay-in-slip Rs. 4,000/- was found drawn in favour of Ramayan Singh was also seized. All the counterfoils were proved by the P.W. 4, Investigating Officer which were marked Exts.-4/1 to 4/6. This witness also proved another seizure list of the Jewelleries of the complainant which was marked Ext.2/1 and her Jewelleries were returned to the complainant under the order of the Court as stated above. I find that complainant was driven out while she was staying with her husband Jairam Singh in the house of Mahesh Singh in Park Street Area and Mahesh Singh was a driver in the Police Department. She was driven out in presence of the witness from his house and that the demand of dowry from her was within his house and knowledge and was supporter therefore, of such demand and torture being extended to her. I find that Ext.-4 series which were the counterfoils of the bank drafts drawn on different dates in favour of the petitioner Ramayan Singh i.e. father-in-law of the complainant sufficiently entails his complicity and the allegation could be substantiated that demand of dowry was also made by him besides others. The bank drafts were also prepared in his name. I further find that the learned S.DJ.M. by scrutinizing the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution as also appreciating the evidence of the petitioner-husband Jairam Singh held the petitioners guilty under Sections 498A/406 IPC and exonerated them from the charges framed under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned Sessions Judge in appeal has given concurrent finding of facts by meticulously examining the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioners and defence and the learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner failed to show any illegality or irregularity in judgment impugned recorded by the trial court and the appellate court having their concurrent findings so as to call for interference, This Criminal Revision is devoid of merit, accordingly it is dismissed. The petitioners are directed to serve out their balance period of sentence. The trial court is directed to issue process so as to arrest them to serve out the sentence if do not surrender in G.R. No. 3984 of 2000 corresponding out T.R. No. 285 of 2008. Their bail bonds stands vacated/cancelled.