Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1513 (JHR)

Mahendra Pandit v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-08-24

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 09.05.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. II) Deoghar in Cr. Appeal No. 29 of 2000, whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31.03.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Deoghar in G.R. Case No. 218 of 1999, by which the petitioners have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 498(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 months has been affirmed. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the father-in-law of the petitioner no. 1 had clearly stated that no demand of any money was made by the petitioner no. 1. It has also been submitted that all the prosecution witnesses are related to each other and therefore their evidences being not trustworthy should not have been relied upon. It has further been submitted that the Investigating Officer of the case has also not been examined which has caused prejudice to the defence. 4. Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. 5. The allegations made in the First Information Report is that the marriage of the petitioner no. 1 was solemnized with the informant four years prior to the institution of the First Information Report. It is alleged that there was a demand of Rs. 10,000/- made from the father of the informant. It is also alleged that the in-laws of the informant also used to demand dowry and when they came to know that the demand would not be fulfilled the petitioner no. 3 had instigated the other petitioners to solemnize the marriage of the petitioner no. 1 with another girl. It has further been alleged that on 05.04.1999 in a pre-meditated plan the informant was locked inside the house of the petitioner no. 3 and she was subsequently recovered by the Police and taken to Mohanpur Police Station wherein fardbeyan was recorded giving rise to Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 59 of 1999. 6. The prosecution in support of its contention examined as many as five witnesses. 3 and she was subsequently recovered by the Police and taken to Mohanpur Police Station wherein fardbeyan was recorded giving rise to Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 59 of 1999. 6. The prosecution in support of its contention examined as many as five witnesses. Most of the witnesses barring a few has stated about the consistent demand of Rs. 10,000/- made by the in-laws of the informant from the father of the informant. The demand of dowry thus has been proved by virtue of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. So far as the angle of conspiracy which was hatched against the informant for eliminating her the same also gets proved from the fact that she was recovered from the house of the petitioner no. 3 by the Police. The cruelty meted out to the informant by all the petitioners have been sufficiently proved by the prosecution and which fact having been properly appreciated by the learned trial court led to conviction of the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 498(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned appellate court has also based on the materials available on record upheld the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioners. 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. 7. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioners it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no. 1 being the husband has already completed his period of sentence and so far as the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are concerned they had remained in custody for some time. Considering the fact that the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are facing the rigours of the prosecution case since the year 1999 and had also remained for some time in custody, their period of sentence is modified to the period already undergone. 8. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence so far as the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are concerned.