Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 913 (GAU)

Dharma Sarma v. Mamani Sarma

2015-07-24

PARAN KUMAR PHUKAN

body2015
JUDGMENT AND ORDER Paran Kumar Phukan, J. - This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.11.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaon in Criminal Appeal No. 3(N)/2003 affirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, in C.R. Case No. 2644/1998, whereby, the learned Court convicted the revision petitioners under Section 498(A) read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to Simple Imprisonment for 1 (one) year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default, to Simple Imprisonment for another 1 (one) month. 2. The sum and substance of the prosecution case is that the marriage between the petitioner Sri Dharma Sarma and the informant Smt. Mamani Sarma was solemnised on 11.03.1998 and after the marriage, they started living together as husband and wife. Soon after the marriage acrimony had started brewing in their marital relationship. The allegation of the informant was that her husband and other relatives started torturing her demanding Rs. 40,000/- and ultimately, she was driven out from her matrimonial house. The articles given to her by her parents at the time of marriage were not returned to her. She filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaigaon which was made over to the judicial Magistrate First Class for disposal. 3. The complainant examined 5 witnesses including herself in support of her case. Defence examined none. The accused revision petitioners denied that they tortured the complainant demanding dowry. Learned Court on the basis of the evidence on record found the accused revision petitioners guilty under Section 498(A) IPC and convicted them and sentenced them as stated above. In appeal, the judgment of the Trial Court was affirmed. Hence, this revision. 4. The revision petitioners assailed the prosecution case from all sides but the main thrust of the argument was that the learned Courts below without proper appreciation of the evidence on record came to the finding that the accused petitioners committed offence under Section 498 IPC. It was contended that the evidence on record was misread by the Courts. It is further submitted that at first the husband of the complainant filed a case against his wife and two others and as a counter blast, the present case was filed by the complainant against him and his family members. 5. The marriage between the parties was not disputed. It is further submitted that at first the husband of the complainant filed a case against his wife and two others and as a counter blast, the present case was filed by the complainant against him and his family members. 5. The marriage between the parties was not disputed. Evidence on record shows that the couple was living together as husband and wife for only about five months and trouble started in their marital life when the husband and his other family members started demanding dowry from her and ultimately, on 19.08.1998, she was driven out from the house. The complainant PW1 has brought allegation of torture against her husband and Bharati Sarma wife of elder brother of the accused (her husband) Dharma Sarma. It appears from her evidence that she suspected that her husband was having illicit relationship with Bharati Sarma. 6. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the revision petitioners strenuously argued that the lurking suspicion of the complainant that her husband was having illicit relationship was the main cause of the dispute between the parties. There was no demand for dowry as alleged by the complainant. This important aspect was ignored by both the Courts below. When such suspicion was there in the mind of the wife quarrel between husband and wife was not unusual. In fact because of suspicion, there was frequent quarrel between husband and wife. 7. The learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidence of the complainant came to the finding that the accused petitioners demanded Rs. 40,000/- from her and on her failure to fulfil the demands she was tortured mentally and physically. Attempt to the finding that the petitioners committed the offence under Section 498 IPC which in my view also not a correct approach. More particularly, when it was found that she had suspicion in her mind of elicit relationship between her husband and his sister-in-law. In her initial deposition, she has not stated that the petitioners demanded Rs. 40,000/- from her and it appears from her statement that her suspicion regarding elicit relationship between her husband and his sister-in-law was the subject matter of dispute. 8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while affirming the judgment of the Trial Court also ignored the important aspect of the case. 40,000/- from her and it appears from her statement that her suspicion regarding elicit relationship between her husband and his sister-in-law was the subject matter of dispute. 8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while affirming the judgment of the Trial Court also ignored the important aspect of the case. Moreover, from the complaint petition and the evidence of the complainant, it is found that prior to filing of this case her husband filed a case against her and some of her relatives which was registered as Case No. 2221/1998. 9. To attract the offence under Section 498(A) IPC, it must be established that the cruelty or harassment to wife was to force her to cause bodily injury to herself or to commit suicide or the harassment was to compel her to fulfil illegal demand for dowry. Every type of harassment do not attract Section 498(A) IPC. 10. In the instant case, the evidence on record clearly shows that the dispute between the husband and wife regarding the elicit alleged relationship between the husband and his sister-in-law, the suspicion of the wife led to frequent quarrels between the parties and such harassment by the husband and his sister-in-law cannot be ruled out. But from the very nature of the quarrel between the parties, it cannot be said that she was tortured by the petitioner demanding dowry from her. There is nothing to show in her evidence that any bodily injury was caused to her. Her mere statement that the accused petitioner demanded Rs. 40,000/- from her do not prove that the accused petitioners demanded dowry from her. 11. Usually in such cases, it is very difficult to find out the truth because of the tendency of the wife to implicate her husband and his immediate relatives and Courts are to be extremely careful in dealing with this complaint and must take pragmatic view while dealing with such type of case. Sometimes, even without reasonable cause, the wife suspect her husband of having elicit relationship with other woman and obviously such suspicion led to quarrels between the two and sometimes the relatives of the parties also joined hands in such cases. In such cases the wife with Section 498(A) IPC to take revenge on her husband and his relatives. The present case falling in the above category cannot be ruled out. In such cases the wife with Section 498(A) IPC to take revenge on her husband and his relatives. The present case falling in the above category cannot be ruled out. Consequently, I find it extremely hazardous to uphold the conviction of the petitioners as recorded by the learned Courts below. 12. From what has been discussed above, I find and hold that the learned Additional Sessions Judge without proper appreciation of the evidence on record affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court which calls for interference by this revisional Court. Accordingly, the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is set aside. The accused petitioners are acquitted and set at liberty forthwith. Bail bond stands discharged. 13. Send down the LCR along with copy of the judgment for information and necessary action.