Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1737 (JHR)

Jeetan Kumari v. State of Jharkhand

2017-10-05

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT : No one appears for the petitioner. However, Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 are present. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 27.05.2005 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner III, Khunti, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 169 of 2004 whereby and whereby the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned ACJM, Khunti in connection with G.R. No. 174 of 1998 by which the opposite party No. 2 had been convicted for the offence under Section 417 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year has been set aside. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the petitioner-informant who was a temporary lecturer of Philosophy in Birsa College, Khunti had developed acquaintance with the opposite party No. 2 from 08.03.1995 as the opposite party No. 2 is the brother-in-law of the cousin sister of the petitioner. It has been alleged that the opposite party No. 2 used to regularly visit the house of the petitioner on the pretext of learning philosophy. It has also been alleged that in course of time, the opposite party No. 2 had established physical relationship with the petitioner as a result of which she got pregnant and later on abortion was done in the month of November 1996. It is also alleged that in the year 1997, opposite party No. 2 was selected in the military service and went to undergo training and after taking leave from service he has also got indulged in sexual intercourse. It has also been alleged that opposite party No. 2 had tried to solemnise marriage with another lady namely, Renu Kumari for which an invitation card was also printed. Based on the aforesaid allegations Khunti P.S. Case No. 32 of 1998 was lodged for the offence under Sections 493 and 376 of IPC. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that on the pretext of marriage the opposite party No. 2 had indulged in sexual relationship with the petitioner fraudulently and dishonestly. It has been stated that the petitioner was under the impression that the opposite party No. 2 shall marry her in course of time, but the opposite party No. 2 instead of the same had tried to solemnise marriage with another girl for which invitation card was also printed. 5. It has been stated that the petitioner was under the impression that the opposite party No. 2 shall marry her in course of time, but the opposite party No. 2 instead of the same had tried to solemnise marriage with another girl for which invitation card was also printed. 5. On the other hand. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has opposed this application while stating that the opposite party No. 2 was a student when the alleged relationship developed with the petitioner and the petitioner was then a temporary lecturer in the college. He has further submitted that there was a love affair between the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2 and being an educated lady the question of deception by establishing physical relation on the pretext of marriage pales into insignificance. Learned counsel thus submits that error committed by the learned trial Court has been rectified by the learned appellate Court by acquitting the opposite party No. 2 from the offence under Section 417 of IPC. 6. The only question which has to be examined in the present case is whether there was any fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the opposite party No. 2 to deceive the petitioner or to get her consent in establishing physical relationship with her. In course of trial, 5 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW2 the President Chhotanagpuri Teli Uthan Samaj has stated in his evidence that an inquiry was conducted on the application submitted by the petitioner and on inquiry it was found that both the petitioner as well as opposite party No. 2 were having a love affair to which the society had directed them to marry. The petitioner has been examined as PW3 who has stated about the distant relationship with the opposite party No. 2 and on account of the same, she had come in acquaintance with the opposite party No. 2. This witness has stated that in spite of making a promise to many the petitioner, the opposite party No. 2 had resiled from the said promise and got printed invitation card in an attempt to solemnise marriage with another girl. This witness has produced some letters and invitation card which has variously marked as Exhibit 1 series. PW5-Dr. This witness has stated that in spite of making a promise to many the petitioner, the opposite party No. 2 had resiled from the said promise and got printed invitation card in an attempt to solemnise marriage with another girl. This witness has produced some letters and invitation card which has variously marked as Exhibit 1 series. PW5-Dr. Lalita Verma is the Medical Officer who had examined the informant and in her radiological report had opined the age of the opposite party No. 2 as 18-20 years. 7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was a lecturer at the relevant point of time while the opposite party No. 2 was a student. The evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution does indicate that there was a love affair going on between both the parties from before and since on account of refusal by the opposite party No. 2 to solemnise marriage with the petitioner, the FIR has been instituted. The relationship that has been developed between the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 cannot be said to be on account of inducement or by deceiving the petitioner. As has been stated above, the petitioner had already been working as temporary lecturer in the College whereas the opposite party No. 2 was a student. The petitioner being a literate lady was aware of the pitfalls of establishing relationship with the opposite party No. 2, but she continued to do so and only when it came to her knowledge about the impending marriage of the opposite party No. 2 with another lady, did she file the FIR. Thus, the consent of the petitioner to the opposite party No. 2 in establishing physical relationship was apparent from the perusal of the FIR as also on her evidence in course of trial. Therefore, the question of any deception does not arise as the same was never a part of the transaction in the earlier phase of the relationship which was existing between the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2. The learned appellate Court has taken into consideration the provisions of Section 415 of IPC as also the factual aspect of the case before acquitting opposite party No. 2 from the charge under Section 417 of IPC. 8. The learned appellate Court has taken into consideration the provisions of Section 415 of IPC as also the factual aspect of the case before acquitting opposite party No. 2 from the charge under Section 417 of IPC. 8. There being no reason to conclude otherwise, the judgment date 27.05.2005 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner III, Khunti, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 169 of 2004 is hereby upheld and the present application is accordingly. dismissed. Application dismissed.