Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 106 (TRI)

Manik Chandra Sarkar v. State of Tripura

2014-02-21

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, C.J. 1. This Revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 06.05.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khowai in Criminal Appeal No. 12(4) of 2004, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the present petitioner and upheld the judgment of conviction and sentence passed upon him by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Khowai, on 14.09.2004 convicting him under Section 498(A) IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months. 2. The undisputed facts are, that PW 2 Smt. Mahua Sarkar was married to the appellant according to hindu rites. According to the complainant within about seven days of her marriage her husband started torturing her and demanding a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, one colour television, etc. According to her she did not inform her parents or brother about this demand but about 20/21 days later her brother came to know that she was being tortured and, therefore, came to her house. He talked to her in laws and went back. Despite that, the torture did not stop and after about 15/16 days her father coming to know about the fact that she was being tortured. He came to her house where a meeting of the gram panchayat was held where the accused undertook not to torture the complainant. It is alleged that despite such undertaking the torture continued and hence the complaint. It would be relevant to mention here that the complaint had been lodged by PW 1 Laxman Sarkar, father of PW 2 and according to him one villager of village Totabari informed him over telephone that his daughter was being tortured on account of demand of dowry. Thereafter he sent his son to the house of his daughter to resolve the dispute but after 15 days they received another information that his daughter had been physically tortured and then he went to the house of the daughter and a meeting of the panchayat was held. He exhibited the bond/undertaking given by the accused which is Exhibit-1. The father came back to his house and according to him the torture on his daughter continued and, thereafter, the daughter came back to her parental house. 3. He exhibited the bond/undertaking given by the accused which is Exhibit-1. The father came back to his house and according to him the torture on his daughter continued and, thereafter, the daughter came back to her parental house. 3. The main defence of the accused was that PW 2 was not happy getting married to the accused since she had a love affair with somebody else and, therefore, she left her house of her own accord. Both the courts below have come to a finding of fact that the torture is proved. This court sitting in its revisional jurisdiction does not normally interfere in findings of fact recorded by the courts below unless those findings of fact are perverse or are such which no reasonable man will arrive at. Even so, I have carefully gone through the evidence with the assistance of the learned counsel of the parties. 4. In this case the prosecution case has been supported by the father, P.W. 1, the girl herself, PW 2, and her brother, PW 5. There is however one contradiction in the statement of PW 5. According to him when he first went to the house of his sister about three weeks of her marriage she did not disclose anything to him. The question is whether such contradiction is such a huge contradiction that it goes to the root of the case. I do not think so and the reason for holding this is that admittedly 15 days after this occurrence the father again went to the village of the accused and a meeting was admittedly held where the accused promised not to torture the girl in future. This itself shows that some torture was being committed prior to this occurrence. The finding arrived at by both the courts below is based on evidence and cannot be said to be a perverse finding. This small contradiction, as pointed out earlier, is not sufficient to discredit the entire prosecution case. It would be pertinent to mention here that it is not only the family members who have supported the prosecution case. PW 3 is a relative of the accused and he also happens to be the neighbour of the accused and according to him on one occasion before the separation, PW 2 had come to his house and according to him he had seen the accused torturing PW 2. PW 3 is a relative of the accused and he also happens to be the neighbour of the accused and according to him on one occasion before the separation, PW 2 had come to his house and according to him he had seen the accused torturing PW 2. When he objected the accused told him to leave his house. He also clearly states that PW 2 had told him that the accused was demanding a big colour television etc. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends, that the statement of this witness cannot be believed because the Investigating Officer has stated that there was no neighbour within a distance of four kanis. However, no suggestion was put to this witness when he appeared in the witness box that he was neither a neighbour nor a relative. When no such suggestion has been put to this witness merely because the Investigating Officer has stated that there was no neighbour within a distance of four kanis would not mean that the statement of the witness is untrue. Furthermore, PW 4, a young boy stated that he used to take tuition from the accused and on one occasion PW 2 had been tortured in his presence by the accused and colour television etc. was demanded from the girl. Though this witness had been cross examined nothing has been extracted in his cross examination to discredit his statement. 6. In view of the above discussion, I am of the clear cut view that the findings arrived at by the courts below cannot be said to be perverse and as such the Revision petition deserves to be rejected. 7. At this stage learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused is a young man and, therefore, some leniency be shown to him. No doubt the accused is a young man and, therefore, this court should be considerate to him. However, on the other hand, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the menace of dowry is causing a lot of problems in our society. Normally I would have not interfered with the punishment but since in the present case the occurrence took place more than 12 years ago and the petitioner has suffered for a long time by the pendency of the proceedings, I modify the sentence and reduce the substantive sentence from 3 (three) years to 1 (one) year rigorous imprisonment. Normally I would have not interfered with the punishment but since in the present case the occurrence took place more than 12 years ago and the petitioner has suffered for a long time by the pendency of the proceedings, I modify the sentence and reduce the substantive sentence from 3 (three) years to 1 (one) year rigorous imprisonment. The fine is, however, increased from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 15,000/-. The fine be deposited within 3 (three) months from today in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 1 (one) year. In case the fine is paid then the same shall be paid to victim, PW 2. 8. The Criminal Revision petition is disposed of. Send down the LCRs forthwith.