Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 345 (JHR)

Vidyadhar Kumbakar v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-02-16

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Mr. Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard Ms. Amrita Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 04.01.2001 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1993 whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 06.02.1993 has been passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bokaro in G. R. No. 577B of 1987 convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 494 and 498A of the I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 1 year has been affirmed. 3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that 7 prosecution witnesses were examined out of whom P.W. Nos. 2, 5 & 6 were declared hostile. She further submits that the entire allegations is based upon the evidence of P.W. Nos. 1, 2 and 4 who all are interested witnesses being the relatives of the informant - P.W. 4. He further submits that the I.O. has not been examined which has caused great prejudice to the defence. 4. It has been stated that the P.W. Nos. 2, 5 & 6 are independent witnesses, who all of them have turned hostile, and the prosecution has unable to prove its case against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in the alternative if this court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction, the period of sentence may be modified suitably. 5. Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer. 6. It appears from the FIR that the marriage of the petitioner with the informant was solemnised in the year 1985 and some times in 1986, there was a demand of money and Rajdoot motor-cycle from the side of the petitioner and on account of non-fulfilment of the demand, the informant was subjected to torture by various means. It is also alleged that a Panchayat was called, but the petitioner refused to accept the decision of the Panchayat. Further allegation has been levelled that the petitioner has solemnised another marriage with Deepali Paul in Purulia in spite of the subsistence of the first marriage with the informant. Based on the aforesaid allegations G. R. No. 577B of 1987 was instituted in which after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and thereafter cognizance was taken and trial proceeded. Further allegation has been levelled that the petitioner has solemnised another marriage with Deepali Paul in Purulia in spite of the subsistence of the first marriage with the informant. Based on the aforesaid allegations G. R. No. 577B of 1987 was instituted in which after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and thereafter cognizance was taken and trial proceeded. In course of trial, 7 witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution case. P.W. Nos. 2, 5 & 6 have declared hostile whereas P.W. 7 is a formal witness. The entire conviction hinges upon the evidence of P.W. Nos. 1, 3 & 4. P.W. 4 is the informant who had specifically stated about the demand of Rajdoot motor-cycle by the petitioner and on account of non-fulfilment of which, she was subjected to torture. Specific assertion has been made by the P.W. 2 with respect to the solemnisation of the second marriage by the petitioner which has been supplemented by the marriage certificate issued by the Marriage Registrar, Purulia and which has been exhibited. P.W. 3 - Balram Kumbhakar is the father of the informant who had also categorically stated about the torture committed out by the in-laws of the informant on account of non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry. P.W. 1 - Haripado Kumbhakar has also stated about the desertion made by the petitioner of the informant and has also referred to the meeting held by the Panchayat in which these witnesses were physically present. 7. Since the allegations made by the informant has been proved by documentary evidence also, the non-examination of the I.O. has not caused any prejudice to the defence. In view of the consistency of the evidence both oral and documentary, the petitioner has rightly been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 494 and 498A of the I.P.C. 8. There being no reason to conclude otherwise, the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioner is affirmed. However, with respect to the sentence imposed upon the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner is facing the rigors of prosecution from 1987 and has for some time remained in custody. Considering the long pendency of the case coupled with the sentence imposed upon the petitioner and the period the petitioner has remained in custody, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone by the petitioner. 9. Considering the long pendency of the case coupled with the sentence imposed upon the petitioner and the period the petitioner has remained in custody, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone by the petitioner. 9. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the sentence.