Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1356 (JHR)

Bhubneshwar Mahto v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-08-03

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned A.P.P., is present. 2. This case is pending since the year 2005 the same is being disposed of based on the materials available on record. 3. In this application the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 20.01.2005 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court, Khunti, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 2000 whereby and where-under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti, Ranchi in connection with Tamar P.S. Case No. 33 of 1991 convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years has been affirmed. 4. The prosecution story arises out of a complaint petition filed by one Bhim Sen Mahto with the allegation that the sister of the informant was the legally married wife of the petitioner whose marriage was solemnized according to the Hindu rites and customs on 20.04.1982. It was alleged that after sometime of the marriage there was a demand of Rs. 25,000/- from the in-laws and on account of non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry she was subjected to torture. It has been alleged that on 15.10.1990 the accused persons had assaulted Serswati Devi and turned out from her matrimonial house with a threat that after she makes arrangement for Rs. 25,000/- will she be able to stay at her matrimonial house. It is alleged that a Panchayati was convened by the mother of Serswati Devi to convince the in-laws but they refused to bow down which resulted in institution of the complaint case. The complaint petition was sent to the police under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 pursuant to which a First Information Report was instituted and after submission of charge-sheet cognizance was taken and thereafter trial proceeded. 5. In course of trial five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 6. P.W.-1, Chaitnam Deo Mahto, had stated that the in-laws of Serswati Devi were demanding an amount of Rs. 25,000/- and on account of non-fulfilment of which she was turned out from her matrimonial house and she was also assaulted. 7. 5. In course of trial five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 6. P.W.-1, Chaitnam Deo Mahto, had stated that the in-laws of Serswati Devi were demanding an amount of Rs. 25,000/- and on account of non-fulfilment of which she was turned out from her matrimonial house and she was also assaulted. 7. P.W.-2, Shivmangal Ram, is a formal witness who has proved the formal first information report which has been marked as Exhibit - 1. 8. P.W.-3, Jiverdham Mahto, had also stated about the demand of Rs. 25,000/- made from Serswati Devi and the torture meted out to her on account of non-fulfilment of the said demand. This witness has also stated that he had gone to the matrimonial house of Serswati Devi to pursue the in-laws to let Serswati Devi stay at her matrimonial house but they refused. 9. P.W.-4, Bhim Sen Mahto, is the brother of Serswati Devi and the informant of the case who has supported the prosecution case and had also stated about the torture meted to his sister on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. 10. P.W.-5, Serswati Devi, is the victim of torture who has stated that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner as per Hindu rites and customs. She has further stated that after staying in her matrimonial house for about one and half years the husband and the in-laws have started quarrelling with her and they made demand of Rs. 25,000/-. She has further deposed that since the demand could not be fulfilled she was tortured and turned out from her matrimonial house. 11. Since the prosecution had been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years by the learned S.D.J.M., Khunti vide judgment dated 29.05.2000 in G.R. Case No. 172 of 1991. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 2000 which was dismissed on 20.01.2005 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court, Khunti, Ranchi. The defence had taken a plea that the witnesses who have been examined on behalf of the prosecution are all interested witnesses and, therefore, their evidence cannot be relied upon. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 2000 which was dismissed on 20.01.2005 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court, Khunti, Ranchi. The defence had taken a plea that the witnesses who have been examined on behalf of the prosecution are all interested witnesses and, therefore, their evidence cannot be relied upon. A plea had also been taken that the learned trial court had failed to appreciate that there were several material contradictions and in oral evidence led by the prosecution. 12. Learned A.P.P. has supported the impugned judgment. 13. It appears that all the five witnesses who have been examined on behalf of the prosecution have supported the prosecution case. P.W.-4, Bhim Sen Mahto is the brother of Serswati Devi who has stated about the demand of dowry and the torture meted out to his sister on account of non-fulfilment of the said demand. The victim Serswati Devi has been examined as P.W.-5 who has supported the prosecution case with respect to the demand and torture committed upon her. P.W.-1 and P.W.-3 have also supported the prosecution case. Thus the evidence which has been led on behalf of the prosecution points to the guilt of the petitioner. Although the Investigating Officer of the case was not examined but in view of the consistent evidence brought on record by the prosecution such non-examination does not prove fatal to the prosecution. 14. In such view of the matter, therefore, the learned trial court had rightly convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 498A which was subsequently affirmed in appeal. There being no reason to conclude otherwise the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court is, hereby, sustained. 15. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner is facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1991. The petitioner has also remained for sometime in custody. Considering the aforesaid scenario the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner is reduced and modified to the period already undergone. 16. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.