Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1510 (JHR)

Dilip Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2017-08-24

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER : 1. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned A.P.P., for the State is present. 2. As this matter is pending since the year 2005 the same is disposed of based on the materials available on record. 3. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 27.6.2005 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 2001 whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 4.7.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with C/1 Case No. 142 of 1994 convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year has been affirmed. 4. The prosecution story in brief is that the opposite party No. 2 was the legally married wife of the petitioner and the marriage was solemnized sometimes in the month of May, 1990. It is alleged that after the marriage there was a demand of Rs. 25,000/- and the father of the complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 15,000/- on two different occasions. It is alleged that subsequently a demand for Bajaj scooter was made. It is alleged that scooter was purchased by the father of the complainant in the name of the complainant and the petitioner was asked to give a bond that no further demand would be made in future. 5. It is alleged that the petitioner refused to give such assurance but subsequently one day while cooking the opposite party No.2 could hear that the accused persons were conspiring to commit her murder and thereafter, she left her matrimonial house and subsequently instituted a criminal case. 6. Based on the aforesaid allegation C/l Case No. 142 of 1994 was instituted against the petitioner and her parents-in-law of the complainant under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. After enquiry was conducted under Section 202 of the Cr PC cognizance was taken and thereafter trial proceeded. Since the complainant has been able to establish her case beyond all reasonable doubt the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to various terms. 7. After enquiry was conducted under Section 202 of the Cr PC cognizance was taken and thereafter trial proceeded. Since the complainant has been able to establish her case beyond all reasonable doubt the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to various terms. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 2001 in which vide judgment dated 27.6.2015 while the conviction of the petitioner was upheld but the conviction and sentence of the parents-in-law of the complainant was set aside. 8. It is the case of the defence that that witnesses who have been examined are related witnesses and therefore, their evidence is not trustworthy. It has also been stated that the demand• of scooter could not be substantiated as the scooter was registered in the name of the complainant. 9. It appears that in course of trial six witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant. 10. CW 1, Parmanand Mishra, has stated about the marriage of the petitioner having been solemnized with the complainant and after marriage there was a demand of money and a Bajaj scooter. This witness was the mediator of the marriage between the petitioner and the complainant. 11. CW 2. Badri Prasad is the father of the complainant who had stated that an amount of Rs. 25.000/- was demanded by the petitioner out of which he had paid an amount of Rs. 15,000/-. This witness had further stated that he had purchased a scooter on the persistent demand of the petitioner and he had asked for an undertaking from the petitioner that no further demand would be made which however was refused by the petitioner. 12. CW 3. Tarun Kumar, is the brother of the complainant who had also supported the complaint case. 13. CW 4. Babita Devi. is the complainant herself who had stated that she was married with the petitioner on 05.03.1990 and after five months there was a demand of Rs. 25.000/- out of which an amount of Rs. 15.000/- was given by the father of the complainant to the petitioner. This witness had also supported the fact with respect to purchase of a scooter. 14. CW 5. Hans Kumar. is a hearsay witness. 15. CW 6. Rajendra Prasad. had also supported the complainant with respect to the demand of Rs. 25.000/- out of which an amount of Rs. 15.000/- was given by the father of the complainant to the petitioner. This witness had also supported the fact with respect to purchase of a scooter. 14. CW 5. Hans Kumar. is a hearsay witness. 15. CW 6. Rajendra Prasad. had also supported the complainant with respect to the demand of Rs. 25.000/- as well as scooter. The complainant had also filed the documentary evidence to prove the Bajaj scooter was purchased in the name of the complainant and the complainant had also produced an undertaking given by the petitioner that he will not ill-treat the complainant. 16. The evidence of the witnesses of the complainant do suggest that there was a consistent demand of Rs. 25.000/- and a scooter from the complainant and the maximum demands having been fulfilled the petitioner had given an undertaking not to ill-treat the complainant in future. The receipt of scooter has also been proved by the complainant. The complainant-witnesses have consistently stated about the demand of Rs. 25,000/- and an amount of Rs. 15,000/- on two different occasions having been paid by the father of the complainant to the petitioner. This fact thus proved that the complainant was subjected to torture by the petitioner resultantly he was rightly convicted by the learned trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 498- A of the Indian Penal Code. The learned appellate Court also based on the materials available on record affirmed the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioner. 17. There being no reasons to conclude otherwise the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned appellate Court is hereby, sustained. 18. However. with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner is concerned, it appears that the petitioner is facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1994. The petitioner has also remained in custody for sometime. Considering the long pendency of the case and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone. 19. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence. Application dismissed. Application dismissed.