Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 483 (GAU)

Ranjan Das v. State of Tripura

2012-04-19

SWAPAN CHANDRA DAS

body2012
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.C. Das 1. The petitioners, named above, were found guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC in a warrant trial by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kamalpur, North Tripura in Case No. GR.83/1999 and sentenced the petitioner No. 1, Ranjan Das to suffer SI for 1(one) year and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default of payment to suffer further SI for 2(two) months and the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, Balaram Das and Sumitra Das were sentenced to suffer SI for 6(six) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each, in default to suffer SI for one month. Being aggrieved the accused petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No. 5/2004 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamalpur, North Tripura and by judgment & order dated 30.11.2004, learned Additional Sessions Judge affirmed the judgment & order of conviction under Section 498(A), as passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kamalpur but modified the sentence directing that the accused petitioner, Ranjan Das, shall pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousands), in default of payment shall suffer SI for 5 (five) months and the accused petitioners, Balaram Das and Sumitra Das, shall pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment suffer SI for 2(two) months each. The present petition is filed challenging the judgment & order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamalpur, North Tripura. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C this Court is to see the correctness, legality and propriety of the order passed by the inferior Court and the regularity of the proceeding before such inferior Court. This Court is not required to re-appreciate the evidence on record unless it is clearly shown that the finding of the Court below was perverse or that there was no evidence to arrive at such finding. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. D.C. Roy, for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. P. Bhattacharjee for the State-respondent. 3. This Court is not required to re-appreciate the evidence on record unless it is clearly shown that the finding of the Court below was perverse or that there was no evidence to arrive at such finding. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. D.C. Roy, for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. P. Bhattacharjee for the State-respondent. 3. The fact, in short, necessary for disposal of this petition, may be noticed thus : Smt. Laxmi Bala Das (PW.3), submitted a written complaint before SDJM, Kamalpur, on 07.06.1999, alleging that her marriage was solemnized as per Hindu Customary Rites with the accused-Ranjan Das and after marriage, she entered the marital home and lived and co-habited with the accused Ranjan Das. Her parents-in-Law i.e. the accused Balaram Das and Sumitra Das were also residing in the same family. She alleged that in the marriage cash Rs. 5,000/-, one bicycle, wrist watch, a four band radio, golden ornaments, furniture and other articles were given. Since after 3/4 days of the marriage the accused persons were tormenting her alleging that goods and articles given in the marriage were of inferior quality. Soon thereafter, they started mental and physical torture on her. The accused persons, thereafter, also demanded Rs. 10,000/- to bring the same from her parental home and she reported the demand to her parents on 28th of Vadra, 1405 BS but her father could not fulfill the demand due to poverty. Since the demand could not be fulfilled she was continuously subjected to physical and mental assault and harassment and therefore, she reported the village Panchayat and Panchayat took initiative for settlement. In the Panchayat meeting the accused persons assured that they shall no longer torture upon her and on that assurance she went back to the matrimonial home but the accused persons continued to assault her both mentally and physically. Subsequent thereto, on 23rd May, 1999 her husband, the accused Ranjan, eloped with another women namely, Laxmi Malakar and thereafter married her at Agartala and later on returned with Laxmi Malakar to the house and started living as husband and wife. The accused persons along with the second wife of Ranjan namely, Laxmi Malakar put out her from the matrimonial home, on 06.06.1999 and she took shelter in her parental home. The accused persons along with the second wife of Ranjan namely, Laxmi Malakar put out her from the matrimonial home, on 06.06.1999 and she took shelter in her parental home. She, therefore, prayed for punishment of the accused persons including that of the alleged second wife of her husband namely, Laxmi Malakar. Learned SDJM forwarded the complaint to Officer-in-Charge, Kamalpur Police Station under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C for investigation. Accordingly, Kamalpur PS Case No. 41/1999 under Sections 498(A)/94 of I.P.C was registered and after investigation police submitted charge sheet against the F.I.R named accused persons i.e. the present accused petitioners including alleged second wife, Laxmi Malakar, for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498(A)/494 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C and accordingly, on the basis of police report cognizance was taken and in due course, on commencement of trial charges were framed against the accused petitioners for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498(A) and 494 of I.P.C and against accused Laxmi Malakar for commission of offence punishable under Section 494 of I.P.C. 4. In course of trial, prosecution examined as many as 9(nine) witnesses including the informant/victim, Laxmi Bala Das and the defence adduced no evidence. Learned SDJM at the conclusion of trial found the accused petitioners guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 498(A) of I.P.C and acquitted all the accused persons from the charge under Section 494 of I.P.C. 5. In course of argument learned counsel, Mr. Roy, appearing for the accused-petitioners, submitted that there is no cogent evidence on record that the alleged victim, Laxmi Bala Das, was subjected to cruelty or harassment in any manner. In the F.I.R she alleged that soon after 3/4 days of marriage she was tormented by the accused persons alleging that the goods and articles given at the time of marriage were of inferior quality but in her deposition she stated nothing of the sort. Learned counsel further stated that regarding demand of Rs. 10,000/- there is no date, time and manner of demand and the allegation is made only in the air and therefore, the finding of the Courts below were based on no evidence and liable to be interfered. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Bhattacgarjee, has submitted that the informant victim made allegation of physical and mental torture on two grounds. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Bhattacgarjee, has submitted that the informant victim made allegation of physical and mental torture on two grounds. Firstly, for inferior quality of goods and articles given at the time of marriage and secondly, non-fulfillment of demand of Rs. 10,000/-. He further submitted that there was village meeting on the allegation made by the victim women and the independent witnesses straightway supported the contention of the victim women that her husband and in-laws made commitment in the meeting that they shall not deal with the informant with cruelty and harassment but they did not keep their words and as a result, the victim had to take shelter in her parental home. He has further pointed out that a young Hindu woman unless was assaulted and harassed in the matrimonial home, specially by her husband, she will never leave the matrimonial home to be a burden in her parental home. In the circumstances of the case, the victim woman cannot be disbelieved and the finding of conviction and sentence, as passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, may be maintained. 6. The informant made allegation in the F.I.R that she was tormented in the matrimonial home alleging that the quality of the goods and articles given at the time of marriage were inferior but in her deposition she stated nothing on that issue. She, however, stated that she was subjected to physical and mental torture on demand of Rs. 10,000/- which her father could not fulfill and for the physical and mental torture she reported it to the Panchayat and there were several Panchayat meetings. PWs 3 and 5 materially supported PW.2. PW.8, the father of the informant, also supported her. 7. On perusal of the evidence of PWs.2, 3, 5 and 8, I am of the opinion that the finding of the Courts below cannot be termed as perverse or that it was not supported by evidence at least against accused Ranjan Das as submitted by learned counsel Mr. Roy. No doubt, there is no specific date and time of alleged harassment and cruelty but it is evident that there were something wrong in the matrimonial home for which Panchayat meetings were held and the informant left the matrimonial home and took shelter in her parental home. Roy. No doubt, there is no specific date and time of alleged harassment and cruelty but it is evident that there were something wrong in the matrimonial home for which Panchayat meetings were held and the informant left the matrimonial home and took shelter in her parental home. Section 498(A) of I.P.C has been inserted by the Legislature to stop all sorts of cruelty towards a married women and the Court requires to examine the evidence in each case, keeping in mind the social scenario and the very purpose of the legislation. It is the solemn duty of the husband to maintain his wife with all dignity and humanity. It is the husband who is responsible to protect her. 8. The informant made general allegation against her in laws but there is nothing specific against them. She made allegation that her husband married again the acquitted accused Laxmi Malakar and living with her which might have compelled her to leave the matrimonial home. Under such circumstances, mental torture by the accused husband, Ranjan Das, was correctly established but in my considered opinion, the accused petitioners, Balaram Das and Sumitra Das, being the father-in-law and mother-in- law, may have supported their son, Ranjan Das in the exercise of cruelty but I find nothing that they have actively participated in the exercise of cruelty on the informant and as such, the accused petitioners, Balaram Das and Sumitra Das may get the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the judgment & order of conviction and sentence, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kamalpur, North Tripura affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamalpur against the accused petitioners, Balaram Das and Sumitra Das, is set aside and quashed and they are set at liberty. The judgment & order of conviction and sentence, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamalpur, against the accused-petitioner Ranjan Das, is affirmed. He should made the payment of the fine amount, as imposed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, immediately and in the event of payment so made the amount should be given to the informant, Smt. Laxmi Bala Das, as compensation. 9. The criminal revision petition is accordingly partly allowed. Send back the LC records along with the copy of this judgment.