Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1233 (JHR)

Aruna Rani Prajapati v. State of Jharkhand

2014-12-11

R.R.PRASAD, RAVI NATH VERMA

body2014
Judgment : I.A. No.3570 of 2014 Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on being satisfied with the grounds shown in the Interlocutory Application, the delay of fifty eight (58) days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. I.A. No. 3570 of 2014 stands disposed. Cr. M.P. No.2934 of 2013 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 4. This application has been filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for setting aside that part of the judgment and order passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-X, Ranchi on 14.06.2013 in Cr. Appeal No.09 of 2012 whereby, learned appellate court while affirming the judgment of conviction passed against accused namely, Sanjay Kumar Prajapati and Munni Devi, acquitted the accused Jamuna Prasad, Mina Devi and Mukund Prajapati 5. It is the case of the prosecution, as has been made out in the complaint petition that after the negotiation when the marriage was fixed in between the complainant and the accused Sanjay Kumar Prajapti, the accused persons put forth the demand of dowry of Rs.25,000/-as well as household articles and Colour T.V. The parents of the complainant fulfilled the demand except the demand of T.V.. When the complainant/petitioner came to her in-laws place after the marriage, the husband started misbehaving with the complainant/petitioner. When the complainant raised objection to it, it was told by the husband that unless and until, T.V. and also cash of Rs.25,000/-is paid, he will not change his behaviour. However, the complainant did told him that the demand would not be fulfilled. Thereafter the accused persons started, subjecting her to torture, mentally as well as physically. The husband and the mother-in-law used to subject her to assault. 6. Further case is that the accused persons had spread out false propaganda that the complainant is suffering from some kind of skin disease. Subsequently, the complainant was ousted from her matrimonial house. 7. On such allegation, the complaint was lodged. After the cognizance of the offence was taken, the accused persons were put on trial. 8. The trial court, after taking into account the evidences adduced on behalf of the complainant/petitioner, did convict and sentence, all the accused persons including Opp. Party Nos.2 to 4 vide its judgment and order dated 19.12.2011. Against that order, Cr. Appeal No. 09 of 2012 was preferred. 8. The trial court, after taking into account the evidences adduced on behalf of the complainant/petitioner, did convict and sentence, all the accused persons including Opp. Party Nos.2 to 4 vide its judgment and order dated 19.12.2011. Against that order, Cr. Appeal No. 09 of 2012 was preferred. The appellate court, after appreciation of the evidences adduced on behalf of the complainant, affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the husband and mother-in-law, but set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence with respect to accused/Opp. Party Nos. 2 to 4, namely, Jamuna Prasad, Mina Devi and Mukund Prajapati. 9. That order is under challenge. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by referring to the evidence of the complainant, as recorded by the trial court, submits that the evidence is there to the effect that all the accused persons had subjected the complainant to torture and in spite of that, the appellate court recorded the order of acquittal against the Opp. Party Nos.2 to 4 on the ground that they were not living with the husband and the mother-in-law of the complainant and thereby, the order passed by the appellate court is fit to be set aside so far it concerns Opp. Party Nos.2 to 4. 11. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record including the judgment passed by the trial court and also the appellate court, we do find that the ground of acquittal is not only which was referred to on behalf of the petitioner rather the court on the basis of evidences brought on record, did find that the appellant had had no concerned with the affairs of wife and husband as they were residing separately from them. The trial court did find that no specific allegation is there against the Opp. Party Nos.2 to 4 of subjecting the complainant to torture. 12. Accordingly the appellate court recorded the order of acquittal by observing, which is given hereunder:- “Here in this case, the complainant has stated that the appellant No.5 Bal Mukund resides at Chaibasa, where he has got his watch shop. Her brother CW-1 has also stated that after said visit at the in laws house of complainant, he went at house of Bal Mukund to complain about such incidence. Thereafter, he went at the in law's house of the complainant. Her brother CW-1 has also stated that after said visit at the in laws house of complainant, he went at house of Bal Mukund to complain about such incidence. Thereafter, he went at the in law's house of the complainant. It means that the brother of the complainant has also stated before court that the house of said Bal Mukund/mediator was not there, at the in law's house of the complainant. Moreover, his status has come as mediator, only. Furthermore, the allegation against the elder brother of the husband i.e. Yamuna Prasad is that he had supported the act of the husband and had not saved the complainant. It has come in evidence of DW-1 at para 7 and DW-2 at para 6 that Yamuna Prasad and his wife are living separately, from the house of husband and mother in law (Appellant No.1 and 2). Moreover, the argument of ld. counsel for the appellant appears to be convincing, on the point that if there was any demand, it was for the benefit of husband, not for these accused. Their status appears to be separate from husband and mother-in-law. Moreover, the present case was filed after filing of divorce suit. Thus in view of aforesaid circumstances, it appears that there was no role of Yamuna Prasad, his wife and Balmukund (Jeth, Jethani and Mama Sasur) i.e. appellant Nos. 3 to 5 in said act of torture”. 13. We do find that the appellate court did find that there is no specific allegation either of putting forth the demand or subjecting the complainant to torture and that they had had no concerned with the affairs of wife and husband, as they were residing separately from the husband and the mother-in-law of the complainant. 14. Thus, we do find that the appellate court was absolutely justified in recording the order of acquittal against the Opp. Party Nos.2 to 4. 15. We do not find any merit in this petition and hence, this application is dismissed.