Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 274 (JHR)

Razia Bibi v. State of Jharkhand

2015-02-20

RAVI NATH VERMA

body2015
ORDER : This Acquittal Appeal filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the complainant-appellant is directed against the Judgment dated 14.11.2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Pakur in P.C.R. Case no. 262 of 1998 / T.R. No. 174 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the court having found the respondent nos. 2 to 4 not guilty for the offence under Section 498 „A? of the Indian Penal Code acquitted them from the charge. 2. The prosecution case, which originated from a complaint filed by the present appellant Rajiya Bibi, in short, is that the complainant-appellant was married with respondent no.2- Maksad Ali, almost two years before filing of the complaint petition and in the marriage, her parents had given ornaments, utensils and Rs.30,000/- in cash for purchasing a motorcycle and after marriage, she came to her matrimonial house and entrusted all the above presentations to her husband but her husband was not satisfied with the dowry, which was given to her by her parents. Her matrimonial life since after the marriage was not very happy as she was maltreated and misbehaved by her husband and Halima Bibi, the first wife of her husband, at the instigation of respondent no.4, the father-in-law. It is further alleged that after some time, the accused persons started demanding Rs.7,000/- for the treatment of respondent no.3, the first wife. Her father anyhow arranged Rs.5,000/- and gave it to her husband but even thereafter the accused persons continued to demand more money from her parents and due to non-fulfillment, she was subjected to physical torture and one day even the complainant was mercilessly assaulted in presence of her father and after snatching all her ornaments, she was turned out of the matrimonial house saying that she will not be allowed to lead her matrimonial life unless Rs.5,000/-, which is lying in her account in Gramin Bank, is withdrawn and handed over to them. 3. On the basis of the said complaint, P.C.R. case no. 262 of 1998 was registered and after taking cognizance, the Court of A.C.J.M., Pakur transferred the case for enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. and disposal. Thereafter, the charge under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code was framed against the respondent nos. 2 to 4 to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty. 262 of 1998 was registered and after taking cognizance, the Court of A.C.J.M., Pakur transferred the case for enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. and disposal. Thereafter, the charge under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code was framed against the respondent nos. 2 to 4 to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty. The defence was complete denial of the allegation and claimed to be falsely implicated in this case. 4. The trial court on consideration of the evidence and materials on record acquitted the respondent nos. 2 to 4 from the charge. Being aggrieved with the judgment of acquittal, the present appellant preferred a criminal miscellaneous petition for grant of leave to file the acquittal appeal and after the leave was granted, the present acquittal appeal was filed. 5. Assailing the judgment of acquittal, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution witnesses were consistent in their testimonies that the demand of respondent nos. 2 to 4 was though not related to dowry but it was an unlawful demand. It was also submitted that the prosecution has established and proved that soon after her marriage, the appellant-complainant was subjected to assault and harassment to bring more money from her paternal house, hence the impugned judgment of acquittal is bad in law. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. The word „cruelty? as defined under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code consists of two clauses namely clause (a) and clause (b) and to attract either of the clauses of Section 498-A, it must be established by the prosecution that the cruelty or harassment to wife was to force her to cause grave bodily injury to herself or to commit suicide or the harassment was to compel her to fulfill illegal demand. Keeping in view the above provision of law, I would like to examine the testimony of witnesses and other materials on record in order to satisfy myself as to whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below is based on proper appreciation of the evidences? 7. Keeping in view the above provision of law, I would like to examine the testimony of witnesses and other materials on record in order to satisfy myself as to whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below is based on proper appreciation of the evidences? 7. P.W.1 Sufera Bibi has supported the case of complainant of demand of Rs.5,000/- from the appellant and that on instigation of the father-in-law Afjal Seikh, the first wife of Maksad Ali, assaulted the complainant and thereafter the complainant was driven out of her matrimonial house in presence of her father but the witness has nowhere disclosed in her evidence as to how she came to know of the demand of money and the fact that due to non-fulfillment, the complainant was subjected to physical assault. She has further confirmed that she is not related with the complainant Rajiya Bibi. 8. P.W. 2 Habibullah, who is the brother of complainant-appellant, has also supported the case of complainant of unlawful demand and assault since after the marriage but has nowhere stated that in presence of his father, the complainant was driven out of her matrimonial house on 23.10.1998. 9. P.W. 3 has also nowhere disclosed in his testimony as to from whom he came to know of unlawful demand and assault of complainant. 10. P.W. 4 is the father of the complainant and while confirming the demand of Rs.7,000/- by respondent nos. 2 to 4 and payment of Rs.5,000/- to them has further confirmed that even after part payment of their demand, the complainant was subjected to physical assault and thereafter she was driven out of her matrimonial house. The witness has nowhere stated in his evidence that his daughter was driven out in his presence. 11. The complainant-appellant Rajiya Bibi (P.W.5) while reiterating the fact stated in the complaint petition further testified that her matrimonial life was very happy for the first 7-8 months after the marriage but thereafter her husband demanded Rs.7,000/- and asked her to bring it from her parents? house. The witness has further stated that her father anyhow managed and gave Rs.5,000/- to her husband but from that amount, her husband purchased jewellery for his first wife. house. The witness has further stated that her father anyhow managed and gave Rs.5,000/- to her husband but from that amount, her husband purchased jewellery for his first wife. This very statement of the witness that she was happily living in her matrimonial house in the first 7-8 months of her marriage completely demolishes her own case of demand and assault since after marriage as alleged in the complaint petition and also the evidence of other witnesses of assault of complainant since after the marriage. The witness has nowhere stated that she was ousted from her matrimonial house in presence of her father. 12. In Manju Ram Kalita Vs. State of Assam [2009 (3) East Cr. C. 321 (S.C.)], the Hon?ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of cruelty, held: “Cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498-A, IPC is to be established in the context of Section 498-A, IPC as it may be a different from other statutory provisions. It is to be determined/inferred by considering the conduct of the man, weighing the gravity of seriousness of his acts and to find out as to whether it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide etc. It is to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. Petty quarrels cannot be termed as „cruelty? to attract the provisions of Section 498-A, IPC. Causing mental torture to the extent that it becomes unbearable may be termed as cruelty.” 13. The instant case is required to be examined taking into consideration the aforesaid settled legal provisions. Admittedly, P.W.4, the father of the complainant, has nowhere said about an unlawful demand by any of the accused persons in his presence. Since after her marriage, the complainant had never visited her parents house and none of the witnesses in their evidence has testified that they ever visited the matrimonial house of the complainant. P.W. 4, the father, has also denied that in his presence, the complainant was ousted from her matrimonial house. There is absolutely no evidence on record to corroborate the allegation of assault rather the evidence is vague and omnibus. The petty quarrels or sporadic incidents of ill-treatment by husband and in-laws do not attract or fall within the four corners of the term “cruelty” as defined under Section 498 ?A? of Indian Penal Code. There is absolutely no evidence on record to corroborate the allegation of assault rather the evidence is vague and omnibus. The petty quarrels or sporadic incidents of ill-treatment by husband and in-laws do not attract or fall within the four corners of the term “cruelty” as defined under Section 498 ?A? of Indian Penal Code. 14. From the above testimonies of prosecution witnesses, it can be safely inferred that there is no evidence that the respondent nos. 2 to 4 went on demanding more money by way of illegal demand and consequently complainant was subjected to physical assault. 15. In view of above discussion, it would be unsafe to convict respondent nos. 2 to 4 on the basis of uncorroborated evidence. The prosecution, in my view, has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the above respondents have committed offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. Resultantly, the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court below needs no interference. The acquittal appeal being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed.