Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 368 (JHR)

Mahesh Mahto v. State Of Bihar

2017-02-20

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard the parties. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 19.9.2000, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat in Cr. Application No. 25/07 of 1998, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.4.1998, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Bermo at Tenughat in G.R. Case No. 972 of 1995, convicting the petitioner for the offence under section 498A of IPC, has been dismissed by modifying the sentence by reducing it to R.I. for one year. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on similar set of allegations, other accused persons were acquitted by the learned trial court but the said benefit was not given to the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the petitioner was also acquitted for the offence under section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and since the demand of dowry itself was not proved by the prosecution, no offence under section 498 A of IPC can be sustained. It has also been submitted that several contradictions have come in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the case diary and non examination of the Investigating Officer has prejudiced the defence. In the alternative, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody for five months and he is facing the prosecution since the year 1998 and therefore if the order of conviction is not interfered with, then at least order of sentence may be reduced considering the said fact. 4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. It appears that an allegation was made in the FIR that there was a demand of dowry in the shape of Rs. 40,000/- and a motorcycle and on account of non fulfillment of the same, petitioner and his family members tortured the informant. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, Nawadih P.S. Case No. 105 of 1995 was instituted. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted, pursuant to which, cognizance was taken for the offence under section 498A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. In course of trial, ten witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, Nawadih P.S. Case No. 105 of 1995 was instituted. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted, pursuant to which, cognizance was taken for the offence under section 498A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. In course of trial, ten witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.Ws-1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10 have not supported the prosecution case and were declared hostile by the prosecution. Entire conviction of the petitioner is based on the evidence of P.W-7, brother of the informant, P.W-8-the informant and and P.W-9-mother of the informant. 6. P.W-8-Kamli Devi, the informant, has stated that there was a demand of dowry and motorcycle from her parents made by the accused persons and on non fulfillment of which, she was tortured by the petitioner. This witness has stated in her cross-examination that she was beaten by her husband. P.W-8 has further stated that a Panchayti was held but the petitioner refused to accept the verdict of the Panchayat. P.Ws-7 and 9 have consistently stated that torture was meted out to the informant. Considering the evidence, which has been brought forth by the prosecution in the shape of P.Ws. 7, 8 and 9, the learned trial court had convicted the petitioner for the offence under sections 498A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years. Learned appellate court while sustaining the order of conviction has reduced the period of sentence to one year. Since the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts with respect to torture committed by the petitioner upon P.W-8, the petitioner was rightly convicted for the offence under section 498A of IPC. Learned trial court had also properly appreciated the materials available on record. In view of consistent evidence brought on record by the prosecution, no interference is necessitated in the order of conviction. 7. However, with respect to the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner is facing rigors of the prosecution case since 1998 and he has remained in custody for about five months out of maximum sentence of one year R.I. Such scenario would definitely entitle the petitioner to a reduction in the sentence imposed upon him. Accordingly, the period of sentence awarded is reduced to the period already undergone. 8. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.