Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 336 (JHR)

Mohammad Akhtar v. State Of Bihar

2017-02-15

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – No one appears on behalf of the petitioners. However, Ms. Niki Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State is present. 2. Since all these applications are against the common judgment passed in Cr. Appeal No. 3 of 1998, these applications are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The petitioners are being aggrieved by the judgment dated 6.5.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Cr. Appeal No. 3 of 1998 whereby and where-under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Deoghar in G.R Case No. 1018 of 1991 (T.R. No. 777 of 1997) by which the petitioners have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year has been affirmed. 4. It appears that initially a complaint case was instituted by the informant in which it was alleged that the informant was the legally married wife of the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 426 of 2000. It is alleged that after the marriage the informant was blessed with two children. Subsequently, however there was a demand of dowry in cash and kind made from the father of the informant and to a certain extent the same were fulfilled. However, after two years of the marriage the petitioners having not been satisfied with the articles had demanded a Rajdoot motor cycle which the father of the informant was unable to provide which led the petitioners to torture the informant and thereafter the informant was brought to her parental house in the month of March, 1990 and she was residing in the said house. The complaint case was referred to the Police under Section 156(3) of the Cr PC which lead to registration of G.R. Case No. 1018 of 1991 under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4/5 of the D.P. Act. After investigation culminated in submission of charge-sheet cognizance was taken and the case was transferred to the court of learned S.D.J.M., Deoghar wherein vide judgment dated 24.11.1997 the petitioners were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. However, the petitioners were acquitted from the charges levelled against them under Section 4/5 of the D.P. Act. However, the petitioners were acquitted from the charges levelled against them under Section 4/5 of the D.P. Act. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence the petitioners preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 3 of 1998, which however was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar on 6.5.2000. 5. The petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 426 of 2000 is the husband of the informant and petitioners in Cr. Revision No. 350 of 2000 are the parents in law of the informant whereas petitioner is Cr. Revision No. 421 of 2000 is the brother-in-law of the informant. In course of trial ten witness have been examined on behalf of the prosecution including the informant who was examined as PW 9. 6. It appears that PW 1 and PW 2 are formal witnesses whereas PW 6 and PW 8 were tendered by the prosecution. PWs 3, 4 and 5 are independent witnesses who have supported the occurrence with respect to the demand of Rajdoot motor cycle and the subsequent torture committed upon the informant on account of non-fulfilment of the said demand. PW 7 is the father of the informant who had also supported the occurrence, though there was some minor discrepancy with respect to the date on which she was left in her parents house. PW 9 is the informant herself, whereas PW 10 is the Investigating Officer. PW 9 the informant has categorically stated about the demand made by the petitioners and the assault which was meted out to her by the petitioners. This witness has consistently stated about the demand of a Rajdoot motor cycle and the torture meted out to her by the petitioners. The evidence of the informant (PW 9) has been consistently supported by the evidence of PWs 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9 which does point to the fact that the petitioners had conceitedly committed an act of torture and assault upon the informant on account of non-fulfilment of their demand. There being consistent evidence on record to suggest the complicity of the petitioners in commission of the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code they were rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court as well as affirmed by the learned appellate Court. There being consistent evidence on record to suggest the complicity of the petitioners in commission of the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code they were rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court as well as affirmed by the learned appellate Court. There being no error or illegality in the impugned judgment, this application fails so far as the challenge which has been made to the order of conviction is concerned. 7. However, as regard to the sentence awarded to the petitioners are concerned it appears that the petitioners have been sentenced for undergoing R.I. for one year. The petitioners appear to have remained for some time in custody. The case was instituted in the year 1991 and the petitioners are facing the rigors of the prosecution case for more than two decades. The scenario depicted above would definitely entitle the petitioners to a reduction in the sentence awarded to them. 8. In such circumstances, therefore, the sentence awarded to the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone. 9. These applications stand disposed of with the aforesaid modification in sentence.