Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1844 (JHR)

Anwarul Haque v. State of Jharkhand

2017-11-02

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. H.K. Shikarwar, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 22.11.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2005 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. III, Hazaribagh, whereby and whereunder, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 17.02.2005 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Hazaribagh, in Complaint Case No. 624 of 2002 (T.R. No. 526 of 2005), convicting the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, IPC and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for 02 years and also to pay fine amounting to Rs. 5,000/- each, has been affirmed. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the complainant was married to the petitioner No. 1 on 09.04.1999 according to Muslim rites and customs. It has been stated that after marriage the complainant started residing with the petitioner No.1, but however after a few months of her marriage, on the instigation of petitioner No. 2 and others there was a demand of dowry made and the complainant was subjected to physical and mental torture for meeting the said demand. It has been stated that in the year 2001 the complainant gave birth to her daughter and thereafter the petitioner No. 2 and others had threatened the complainant to bring Rs. 14,000/- and a Television, otherwise she will not be allowed to stay in her matrimonial house. It was also alleged that on 10.07.2001, the petitioner No.2 and others had poured kerosene oil on the body of the complainant but due to alarm raised by her the villagers reached there and saved her life. It is also alleged that a panchayati was organized by Anjuman, but after few days the same thing was repeated and lastly she was forced to leave her matrimonial house on 16.05.2002 and since then she is residing in her parental house. Based on the aforesaid allegation Complaint Case No. 624 of 2002 was lodged in which after cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and trial proceeded. 4. In course of trial 03 witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution. Based on the aforesaid allegation Complaint Case No. 624 of 2002 was lodged in which after cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and trial proceeded. 4. In course of trial 03 witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution. PW 1 and PW 2 are the parents of the complainant who have supported the case of the complainant with respect to the demand made by accused persons and the subsequent assault and torture meted out to the complainant. PW 3 is the complainant herself. She has stated that after solemnization of marriage she gave birth to her daughter and thereafter she was regularly assaulted and tortured by various means by the accused persons. This witness has stated that there was a demand of Rs. 14,000/- and a television and when her father expressed his inability to fulfil the said demand, a panchayati was called upon, wherein the accused persons were directed to keep the complainant with full dignity and honour. She has further stated that the torture continued and ultimately she was ousted from the matrimonial house which led her to stay in her parental house since then. The evidences of the witnesses of the complainant do clearly point out to the fact with respect to the demand of cash and television from the complainant and on account of non-fulfilment of which she was tortured by various means which ultimately led to her ouster from her matrimonial house. Even the decision of the panchayat was ignored by the accused persons and instead of keeping the complainant with them with full dignity and honour. The accused had flouted the said direction and had continued with torture with the complainant. The complainant witnesses having proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt, the petitioners were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, IPC by the learned trial Court and sentenced accordingly. The appeal preferred by the petitioners being Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2005 was also dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. III, Hazaribagh. Therefore, there is no reason to conclude otherwise, the order of conviction passed against the petitioners is hereby sustained. 5. The appeal preferred by the petitioners being Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2005 was also dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. III, Hazaribagh. Therefore, there is no reason to conclude otherwise, the order of conviction passed against the petitioners is hereby sustained. 5. As regards the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioners, it appears that the petitioners have been facing rigours of the prosecution case since 2002 and they have remained in custody for some time. In such view of the matter, the order of sentence passed against the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone by the petitioners. 6. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the order of sentence awarded to the petitioners. Application dismissed.