Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 170 (JHR)

Ishwar Chandra v. State Of Bihar

2017-01-23

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Mr. Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 26.09.1998 passed by Shri Ravindra Nath Verma, learned 2nd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti in Cr. Appeal No. 124 of 1997 by which the judgment of conviction and sentence passed under Section 498A of I.P.C. by Shr Jagarnath Rai, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Khunti in G. R. No. 394 of 1995 has been affirmed. 3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that none of the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the petitioner and in fact the conviction has been based on the testimony of the P.W. 3 - informant. He further submitted that although the parents of the petitioner were acquitted, but since petitioner was the husband, he was convicted under Section 498A and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years. He further submits that several of the witnesses who are villagers are here say witnesses and no reliance can be placed on their testimony. It has also been stated that the petitioner in course of trial as well as during the pendency of this revision has remained in custody for 4 and half months. It has also been submitted that since FIR is of the year 1995 and the petitioner has faced rigors of the trial for the last 22 years and if this court does not interfere in the conviction of the petitioner, the sentence may be modified, since the petitioner has been sufficiently punished due to his incarceration in jail custody. 4. Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer and has stated that 8 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and P.W. 3, the informant has clearly supported the allegation made against the petitioner who is the husband of the informant. He further submitted both the courts below has properly appreciated the materials before convicting the petitioner under Section 498A of I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 3 years. 5. It appears that there is consistent evidence on the part of the prosecution which would suggest that the informant was subjected to torture on account of non-fulfilment of dowry. He further submitted both the courts below has properly appreciated the materials before convicting the petitioner under Section 498A of I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 3 years. 5. It appears that there is consistent evidence on the part of the prosecution which would suggest that the informant was subjected to torture on account of non-fulfilment of dowry. Out of 8 witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W. 3 is the informant and victim of the case who has stated that after the birth of a son, there was a demand of dowry made by her in-laws including the petitioner of Rs. 10,000/-, scooter and a T.V. She has further expressed the inability on the part of her parents to fulfil the demand which had resulted in her being subjected to assault. She has further disclosed about the threat meted out to her if the demands were not fulfilled. P.W. 6 & 7 who are the villagers have stated about the fact that the accused persons were demanding scooter and a T.V. from the informant. P.W. 2 - Aghanu Mahto, the father of the informant has stated about threat meted out to him that they would not keep the informant unless the demand is meted. P.W. 1 - brother of the informant who had also supported the fact that the accused persons had come to their house on 29.06.1995 and has supported the evidence of P.W. 2. P.W. 4 - Sarala Devi is the mother of the informant who has stated on similar lines to that of P.W. 1 & 2. 6. The prosecution therefore has consistently brought forth evidence to suggest that the petitioner had taken part in the demand of cash, scooter as well as a T.V. And on account of non-fulfilment of demand, she was subjected to torture. Based on the evidence on record, the learned court below has convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 498A of I.P.C. and had sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 3 years. The appeal preferred by the petitioner also got dismissed vide judgment dated 26.09.1998. Since no major inconsistency or discrepancy has been put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the evidence of the prosecution being consistent on the point of demand of dowry and torture, the impugned judgments of conviction are in accordance with law and no interference is necessitated in the same. 7. Since no major inconsistency or discrepancy has been put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the evidence of the prosecution being consistent on the point of demand of dowry and torture, the impugned judgments of conviction are in accordance with law and no interference is necessitated in the same. 7. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has remained in custody for a total period of 4 and half years and is facing the rigors of the prosecution case since 1995, while dismissing this application and sustaining the order of conviction the period of sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone. 8. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.