Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 10 (JHR)

Ishrat Praween v. State of Jharkhand

2018-01-02

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The instant petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 12.9.2012 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Sahibganj in Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2012 is suffering from delay of 39 days. The prosecution was lodged by the petitioner wife through P.C.R. Case No. 36 of 1998 before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. IV, Sahibganj which upon trial (T.R. No. 1115 of 2011) ended up in conviction of the husband Opposite Party no.2, herein for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 and ½ years with a fine of Rs.5000/-and on failure to pay the fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. The judgment of conviction is dated 23.12.2011(Annexure-2). 3. The opposite party no.2, Husband on being aggrieved preferred Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2012 before the learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj, who by the impugned judgment has held that the learned Trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the offence as no cause of action accrued within its territorial jurisdiction. The opposite party no.2 was accordingly acquitted. 4. We have perused the impugned judgment of acquittal as well as the judgment of conviction rendered by the learned trial Court. It appears that the learned Trial Court has made no discussion on the point of jurisdiction on the basis of the material allegations contained in the complaint and the statement of the witnesses examined by the Complainant Wife. However, the learned Appellate Court has squarely dealt with the issue and come to a categorical finding at para 24 of the impugned judgment, which is as under:- “Para 24. However, the learned Appellate Court has squarely dealt with the issue and come to a categorical finding at para 24 of the impugned judgment, which is as under:- “Para 24. As such taking into consideration of the aforesaid facts & circumstances, as well as evidence and from perusal of complaint petition and careful scrutiny of the evidence it is apparent and clear from the face of the record that all the incident as alleged i.e. demand of dowry as well as subjecting to torture and cruelty as disclosed in the complaint petition, took place at district Munger and as such no part of cause of action or offence took place within the territorial jurisdiction of district Sahibganj and as such I find that civil court at Sahibganj to try the offence would have no jurisdiction and this aspect of the case have not been considered by the court below while passing an order of conviction and sentence of the present appellant/accused by the court below and no finding has been recorded by the court below on the aforesaid point as raised on behalf of the appellant and as such when no part of cause of action accrued within district-Sahibganj then conviction u/s 498A of IPC would not be sustainable”. 5. As per the complaint case also she left her matrimonial house at Munger after the alleged demand of dowry and torture and was living at Sahibganj at her paternal place. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to question the findings of the learned Appellate Court on the point of jurisdiction. The marriage between the parties took place long back, even as per the statement of P.W.1-Wife, i.e. 17 years, who further stated that after 2/3 years of marriage when the demand of dowry was made, she did not remain at her matrimonial house. She came to her in-laws house in 1997; however the date etc. were not in her memory. On perusal of the impugned judgment as well as the judgment of the Trial Court it is further evident that the opposite party no.2 was aged 60 years at the time of his acquittal. She came to her in-laws house in 1997; however the date etc. were not in her memory. On perusal of the impugned judgment as well as the judgment of the Trial Court it is further evident that the opposite party no.2 was aged 60 years at the time of his acquittal. The learned Appellate Court after examining the allegations contained in the complaint petition and statements of the witnesses therefore came to a considered finding that the Trial Court at Sahibganj did not have any jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition as no cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction. The judgment of conviction and sentence was accordingly set aside. 6. On the face of the aforesaid finding unrebutted by the petitioner and that too on the point of jurisdiction, we are of the view that no purpose would be served by condoning the delay in preferring the instant petition. Accordingly, I.A. No. 5317 of 2014 seeking condonation of delay of 39 days stands dismissed. Consequently the instant Cr.M.P. also stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.