Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 752 (JHR)

Ramesh Thakur v. State of Jharkhand

2017-04-24

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT : No one appears for the petitioners. However, Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State is present. 2. Since this case is pending since the year 2004, the same is being disposed of based on the materials available on record. 3. This application is directed against the judgment dated 29.05.2003 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 1994 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Bokaro, whereby and whereunder, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 22.08.1994 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in C. P. Case No. 112 of 1992 (T.R. No. 571 of 1994), convicting the petitioners for the offences punishable u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for one year, has been affirmed. 4. A complaint case was instituted by the complainant, P.W. 4 in which it was alleged that she is the legally married wife of the petitioner No. 1. It was alleged that on account of non-fulfillment of a demand of Rs. 20,000/- and Rajdoot Motorcycle as dowry, the complainant was threatened and was also abused. It was also alleged that the complainant was subsequently driven out from her matrimonial home and in spite of making best efforts to arrive at a settlement, the accused persons refused and which ultimately led to institution of C.P. Case No. 112 of 1992. 5. Upon conducting an enquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. by examining the complainant as well as her witnesses, cognizance was taken u/s 498A of the I.P.C. After the case was transferred to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, charge was framed and thereafter trial proceeded. 6. It appears that in course of trial the prosecution has examined as many as 04 witnesses in support of its case. P.W. 1, Ranjit Hazam, is the uncle of the complainant. P.W. 2, Ghanshyam Hajam is the cousin of the complainant. P.W. 3 Moti Lal Hajam, is the father of the complainant. P.W. 4 is the complainant herself. Since the complainant is the alleged victim of torture meted out to her by her husband and in-laws, her evidence has been dealt with at first. In her deposition she has stated that on account of non-fulfillment of demand of Rs. 20,000/- and a Rajdoot motorcycle, she was subjected to cruelty and she was also not provided with food. Since the complainant is the alleged victim of torture meted out to her by her husband and in-laws, her evidence has been dealt with at first. In her deposition she has stated that on account of non-fulfillment of demand of Rs. 20,000/- and a Rajdoot motorcycle, she was subjected to cruelty and she was also not provided with food. This witness further stated that at the time of Vishwakarma Puja when her father and uncle went to her matrimonial home along with complainant to keep her there, the petitioner No. 3 who is the mother-in-law had assaulted her and petitioner No. 2 had refused to take her back. This witness further stated that on account of physical torture and assault meted out to her, injuries were suffered by her. P.W. 1, 2 and 3 have supported the occurrence dated 17.09.1992. So far as the other allegations made by P.W. 4 are concerned, P.W. 1, 2 and 3 are hearsay witness with respect to the torture meted out to her. 7. It appears that on the point of torture no question was put to her at the time of cross examination and therefore the evidence of P.W. 4 on such score remained unrebutted and controverted. Since the evidence of P.W. 4 is direct and specific with respect to the mental and physical torture committed upon her, and P.W. 1, 2d and 3 being eye witness to a part of the occurrence, the complainant therefore has been able to prove her case beyond all reasonable doubt, which led conviction by the learned trial Court. The appellate court had acquitted two accused persons, namely, Madhu Thakur and Ganesh Thakur in absence of sufficient evidence against them, but so far as the petitioners are concerned the conviction and sentence awarded to them had been upheld. 8. There being no reason to conclude otherwise so far as the order of conviction is concerned, in such circumstances the judgment of conviction dated 22.08.1994 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in C. P. Case No. 112 of 1992 (T.R. No. 571 of 1994) and subsequent affirmation of the same in Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 1994 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Bokaro vide judgment dated 29.05.2003, are hereby sustained. However, with respect to the sentence imposed upon the petitioners, it appears that the petitioners have been facing rigours of the criminal case since 1992 and also considering the fact that the petitioners had remained for sometime in custody, the order of sentence passed against them is modified to the period already undergone by the petitioners. 9. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the order of sentence awarded to the petitioners.