Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 900 (GAU)

Babul Halder v. State of Assam

2015-07-23

PARAN KUMAR PHUKAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : Paran Kumar Phukan, J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.05.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon in Criminal Appeal No. 2(1)/2005 affirming the judgment and order dated 27.12.2004 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaigaon on 27.12.2004 in G.R. Case No. 393/2001 convicting the petitioner under Section 498(A) IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for 3 (three) months and to pay fine of Rs. 300/-, in default to imprisonment for 15 (fifteen) days. 2. The background facts are that the marriage between the petitioner and the informant was solemnised according to Hindu Customs on 10.12.2001, but after about 6 days of the marriage, the informant had to come back to her parents house because of the torture meted out to her by her husband and other relatives demanding Rs. 50,000/-. She filed FIR before police. A case was registered and after completion of investigation Charge-Sheet was filed. 3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate before whom the case came up for trial examined 6 witnesses. Defence examined one witness. The accused petitioner denied that he tortured his wife demanding dowry. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the basis of the evidence on record came to the finding that the accused petitioner committed offence under Section 498(A) IPC and convicted him accordingly as stated above. In appeal, the judgment was affirmed. Hence, this revision. 4. There was concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the Courts and ordinarily it is not open to the High Court to interfere in its revisional jurisdiction unless it is shown that evidence on record was misinterpreted or was not properly appreciated by the Courts. The foundation of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is the legality, propriety or correctness of the order passed by the Courts below and the jurisdiction could be exercised if there is palpable error or non-compliance of the law or the decision arrived at is completely erroneous and discretion was exercised arbitrarily. It is not open to the High Court to reappraise the entire evidence to upset the finding of the Courts below. 5. In the instant case, evidence of the complainant wife is that on the next day of the marriage her husband and his relatives started torturing her demanding Rs. 50,000/- from her. Initially materials worth Rs. It is not open to the High Court to reappraise the entire evidence to upset the finding of the Courts below. 5. In the instant case, evidence of the complainant wife is that on the next day of the marriage her husband and his relatives started torturing her demanding Rs. 50,000/- from her. Initially materials worth Rs. 31,000/- was given but they were not satisfied and they started torturing her from the next day of the marriage itself, which compelled her to come back to her parents house and take shelter. Her evidence is corroborated by the independent witness PW4 before whom she reported that she was being tortured by her husband and his relatives. After coming back to her parents house, she also disclosed about the entire occurrence to her parents and as reported witness they also corroborated the testimony of PW1. Defence could not elicit anything of importance from them in cross-examination to dislodge their evidence. The learned Courts below found the complainant wholly reliable and trustworthy and no palpable error has been committed for coming to a finding that the petitioner tortured his wife demanding dowry. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam and having gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence, I find no reason to interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below. I have not found any infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon. Consequently, the judgment is affirmed. 7. The occurrence took place in the year 2001. The petitioner has already suffered both mentally and financially due to pendency of the case for such a long period. He has been subjected to protracted trial. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the age and antecedent and also the fact that enough delay has been caused, I think it would be appropriate if the petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment for the term already undergone by him in jail. It is seen from the records that he has already spent more than 1 (one) month in jail and as such, he is only sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 300/-, in default, to imprisonment for 15 (fifteen) days. Send down the LCR along with the copy of the judgment to the Courts below for information and necessary action. 9. It is seen from the records that he has already spent more than 1 (one) month in jail and as such, he is only sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 300/-, in default, to imprisonment for 15 (fifteen) days. Send down the LCR along with the copy of the judgment to the Courts below for information and necessary action. 9. The accused petitioner is directed to deposit the fine within one month.