Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1915 (JHR)

Dashrath Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2017-11-09

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT : Heard Mrs. Jashodhara Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shree Niwas Roy, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 12.12.2003 passed by the learned A.S.J., FTC VII, Hazaribagh in Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 1995 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court on 31.08.1995 in Complaint Case No. 86 of 1992 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 2 years has been affirmed. 3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the husband of the complainant. Learned counsel submits that the most of the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant are related to the complainant and therefore, are interested witnesses and their evidences are not trustworthy. Learned counsel further submits referring to the averments made in the instant application that the parties have settled the dispute and are staying together. However, she is not in a position to state about the current marital status of the petitioner and the opposite party No.2. An alternative argument has been put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner be reduced considering the fact that the petitioner is facing the rigors of trial for more than 2 decades. 4. Mr. Shree Niwas Roy, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 5. It appears that the complaint case was instituted by the opposite party No.2 against 9 accused persons in which it was stated that she was married with the petitioner in the year 1998 and was residing as wife and husband. It has been alleged that after 6 months of marriage, the accused persons had starting demanding a pump set or a Hauler machine and on account of non-fulfillment of the said demand, the accused persons assaulted the complainant and had stopped providing food to her. It has been alleged that on 20.03.1992, the complainant was ousted from her matrimonial house after snatching her jewelleries and subsequently the accused No. 1 married another lady namely, Pushni Devi on 12th/13th March, 1992. 6. It has been alleged that on 20.03.1992, the complainant was ousted from her matrimonial house after snatching her jewelleries and subsequently the accused No. 1 married another lady namely, Pushni Devi on 12th/13th March, 1992. 6. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Complaint Case No. 86 of 1992 was instituted in which after inquiry cognizance• was taken and thereafter charge was framed under Sections 498, 323 and 494 of IPC. The learned trial Court vide judgment dated 31.08.1995 was pleased to convict the petitioner and 2 other accused persons under Section 498-A of IPC and thereafter an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 1995 was preferred in which the judgment and conviction of sentence passed by the learned trial Court was affirmed, so far as the petitioner is concerned, but the other convicts were subsequently acquitted. 7. In course of trial, 7 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW 1- Ramlal Mahto has stated about the marriage solemnised between the complainant and the petitioner 4 years back. This witness has stated that after 3 and half years of marriage, the accused persons have demanded a Hauler machine or water pumping set and on inability of the father of the complainant to accede to the said demand, led to assault upon the complainant and subsequently ousting her from her matrimonial house. PW 2-Bhuneshwar Mahto is the co-villager who had stated that the complainant was ousted from her matrimonial house after being assaulted and her jwelleries were also snatched. PW 3-Tilu Devi has fully supported the prosecution case with respect to her marriage being solemnised with the petitioner and after living happily in the matrimonial house for 3 years, a demand of Hauler machine or pump set was being made and on non-fulfilment of the said demand, she was ousted from the matrimonial house. This witness has also stated about soleimnisation of second marriage of the petitioner with another lady which however was disbelieved by the learned trial Court. PW 4-Jagarnath Mahto has also supported the case of the prosecution. PW 5-Rameshwar Mahto has also stated on similar terms to what has been stated by the other witnesses. PW 6Rajeshwar Mahto and PW 7- Bansi Thakur have disclosed about the subsequent marriage solemnised by the petitioner. 8. PW 4-Jagarnath Mahto has also supported the case of the prosecution. PW 5-Rameshwar Mahto has also stated on similar terms to what has been stated by the other witnesses. PW 6Rajeshwar Mahto and PW 7- Bansi Thakur have disclosed about the subsequent marriage solemnised by the petitioner. 8. The evidence of the witnesses viz., PWs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 clearly establishes the fact that after a year of the solemnisation of the marriage of the complainant with the petitioner. the demand of Hauler machine or pump set was made and since it was not fulfilled. the complainant was variously tortured both mentally and physically and ultimately after snatching her jwelleries, she was ousted from her matrimonial house leading to institution of the complaint case. The complainant has been able to prove her case beyond all reasonable doubt which led the learned trial Court to convict the petitioner under Section 498-A of IPC which was affirmed in appeal. 9. Since no infirmity or illegality could be pointed out by the petitioner in the judgments impugned, the judgments of conviction are hereby sustained. However with respect to the order of sentence is concerned, it appears that the petitioner is facing the rigors of prosecution since the year 1992 and has also remained for some time in custody. The averments made in the instant application with respect to the matter having been, compromised between the parties is also taken note of. On consideration of the aforesaid scenario, it would not be practicable to take back the petitioner in custody. Accordingly, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone by him in custody. 10. This application is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid modification. Application dismissed