Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1020 (JHR)

Punam Kumari Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2018-05-08

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the private opposite parties. 2. The present petition seeking Special Leave to Appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 13.06.2016 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. No. 07/2005 (T.R. No. 2008/2016) is barred by delay of 201 days, for condonation of which, a prayer has been made through I.A. No. 2281/2017. By the impugned judgment, accused / opposite party no. 2 to 4 being the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law, have been acquitted of the charges under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay in filing the instant petition has been caused due to financial constraints as the petitioner is a lady and does not have any independent sources of income. Judgment was passed on 13.06.2016 and she obtained the certified copy on 18.01.2017 and thereafter she has approached this Court. Delay may be condoned, otherwise, she may suffer irreparably. 4. Prayer for condonation of delay has been opposed by the learned counsel for the private opposite parties on the ground that the impugned judgment was passed in the presence of the complainant / petitioner herein. She has been prosecuting the case through the learned counsel in the Trial Court and cannot be allowed to take the plea of financial constraint. There is a huge delay of 201 days which is not adequately explained. 5. Upon hearing the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and the statements made in the instant I.A. as also in the counter affidavit filed by the private opposite parties, we are inclined to condone the delay, keeping into regard that the petitioner is a lady and now divorced wife of the opposite party no. 2 and she may have no independent source of income. She may have been handicapped by financial constraints to approach this Court against the judgment of Acquittal. I.A. stands disposed of accordingly. 6. Complainant has alleged that at the time of her marriage on 02.12.2003 with the accused / opposite party no. 2, various articles such as Hero Honda motorcycle of the price of Rs. 50,000/-, colour T.V., Fridge, Almirah, C.D. Player, Washing Machine and other household articles were given apart from the sum of Rs. 2.25 lakhs. 6. Complainant has alleged that at the time of her marriage on 02.12.2003 with the accused / opposite party no. 2, various articles such as Hero Honda motorcycle of the price of Rs. 50,000/-, colour T.V., Fridge, Almirah, C.D. Player, Washing Machine and other household articles were given apart from the sum of Rs. 2.25 lakhs. After her marriage, she went to her in-laws place and after 10-15 days, accused persons started demanding gold ornaments like necklace, dressing table, sofa set, etc. Father of the complainant could not meet the demand as he had superannuated by that time. Thereafter, they started beating the complainant from time to time. They also inflicted physical as well as mental torture on the complainant. Father-in-law of the complainant had also attempted rape on her. Her husband, on being complained of such incidence, had simply asked to obey the wishes of her father-in-law. Accused persons used to threaten her to kill if demand is not met. She narrated the entire incidence to her parents, whereupon the instant complaint was lodged on 28.06.2004. She left the matrimonial home and started living with her parents. 7. After solemn affirmation and inquiry, learned Trial Court found prima facie case against the accused persons under section 498-A of the Indian Penal code and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused persons were summoned to face trial. Charges were framed under the aforesaid sections on 26.11.2009. On being explained of the accusation, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. After framing of charge, five witnesses were examined by the complainant. CW-1 is the complainant herself, CW-2 is Sanjay Kumar, CW-3 is Ravindra Kumar, CW-4 is Shakuntala Devi and CW-5 is Marigan Shelkar Guha. Complainant has also adduced documentary evidence such as Ext.-1, 1/1, 1/2, 1/3: Complaint Petition No. 496/2005, Ext. -1/4 to 1/8: Complaint Petition No. 07/2005, Ext. 1/9: list of articles, Ext.-2 and 2/1: letters written by the complainant, Ext.-A and A/a: affidavit and Ext-A/b and A/c: signature of Advocate. After examination of the complainant witnesses, statement of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded. 9. -1/4 to 1/8: Complaint Petition No. 07/2005, Ext. 1/9: list of articles, Ext.-2 and 2/1: letters written by the complainant, Ext.-A and A/a: affidavit and Ext-A/b and A/c: signature of Advocate. After examination of the complainant witnesses, statement of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded. 9. Learned Trial Court upon consideration of the evidences on record and the case pleaded by the complainant, came to a finding of acquittal as, according to it, charges under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were not established. 10. The complainant in her examination, supported the allegation made in the complaint. According to her, she had stayed in her matrimonial home for 10-15 days, where-after incidence of beating her on failure to fulfill the demand of dowry started occurring. Father-in-law used to commit obscene acts with her. She had instituted Maintenance Case bearing No. 48/2005 in the Family Court, Dhanbad. Her husband had also instituted matrimonial suit for divorce being case No. 505/2006 which was going on at that point of time. She alleged that her husband is interested in second marriage due to which he had sought divorce. In her cross-examination, she had stated that the marriage have taken place on the assurance that the boy was working in PMCH. When the complainant came to the matrimonial home, she was told by her husband that he works in Computer Section, but the post is not known. She was also told that her father-in-law was working somewhere and had a house of his own. Her husband was the only issue and was entitled to inherit their property. She was unable to state the date on which she came to her father’s house. She further stated that last time she came to her parents’ house in December 2004 and since then, she is living separately. She also stated that she was never in the company of her father-in-law and never spent any night alone with him. Her mother-in-law on being told that her father-in-law sees her with bad eyes and often touches her, asked her to fulfill the wishes of her father-in-law. 11. CW-2 is the brother of the complainant. He has supported the statements made in the complaint. Her mother-in-law on being told that her father-in-law sees her with bad eyes and often touches her, asked her to fulfill the wishes of her father-in-law. 11. CW-2 is the brother of the complainant. He has supported the statements made in the complaint. Apart from other statements made, he has also stated that on 21.12.2004 her in-laws had beaten her and thrown her out of the matrimonial house. They had retained all ornaments, etc. Since then, she is living in her parents’ house. In his cross-examination, he has stated that there was no agreement before the marriage. He did not remember the names of persons who had come in panchayati after such incidence. He also stated that her sister had come 2-3 times after the marriage to her parents’ home. He further stated that her parents had advised her not to put vermilion on her head so that her in-laws would feel bad and would not come to any kind of settlement. He also deposed about the allegations of obscene acts committed by the father-in-law of the complainant. 12. CW-3 is the father of the complainant. He has also deposed that at the time of marriage, various articles along with Rs. 2.25 lakh in cash were given. He has further deposed that his daughter was kept well for sometimes and where-after they started torturing her. They used to lock her in room and did not provide food to her. He has identified Ext.-1, 1/1, 1/2 and 1/3 which are pleadings of the complainant in C.P. No. 496/2005. He also deposed that they were told that the boy works in PMCH which later on turned out to be incorrect. He also proved the documents marked as Ext.-A & A/a: an affidavit dated 06.08.2008 of his daughter. In his cross-examination, he has also stated that after marriage, she was living happily with her husband in her matrimonial house, but thereafter, they started indulging in torture. He also stated about the obscene acts alleged against the father-in-law by the complainant. 13. CW-4 is the mother of the complainant. She has also supported the statements made by the complainant. She has exhibited list of articles which were prepared on 08.04.2005 being Ext.-1/9. She has stated in her cross-examination that her daughter had complained of the incidence on phone. 13. CW-4 is the mother of the complainant. She has also supported the statements made by the complainant. She has exhibited list of articles which were prepared on 08.04.2005 being Ext.-1/9. She has stated in her cross-examination that her daughter had complained of the incidence on phone. She further stated that the boy was reluctant to put vermilion on the head of her daughter even at the time of her marriage. She further stated in her cross-examination that she had not seen payment of amount of Rs. 2.00 lakh as the payment was not made in her presence. She further stated that the relationship between the two families has almost broken. 14. CW-5 is said to be the neighbor of the complainants’ parents. As per his statement, his house is ½ km away from the house of the complainant’s parents. He also stated about the payment of Rs. 2.00 lakh, of which three drafts of Rs. 50,000/- and two drafts of Rs. 25,000/- were given and Rs. 50,000/- were paid for the purchase of motorcycle and other household articles such as colour T.V., DVD, Washing Machine, etc. were also given. In his cross-examination, he could not remember the date of marriage of anyone solemnized after 2003, but since the complainant is his neighbor, he remembered her date of marriage. 15. Learned Trial Court on the basis of these material evidences on record, came to the opinion that out of the five witnesses, four were the family members including the complainant herself and CW-5 though claimed to be an independent witness, but had not seen any occurrence. Learned Trial Court observed that divorce has been granted in Matrimonial Suit No. 505/2006 by the competent court of law, which is marked as Ext.-A. Learned Trial Court did not believe Ext.-2 and 2/1 being two letters purportedly sent by the complainant to her family members as no proof of its dispatch, etc. were shown. Complainant or any of the complainant witnesses had not been able to give any specific details of the date, month or the year in relation to the charges of demand of dowry or beating on failure to do so or torture by the accused persons. No written complaint of any such torture was either evidenced by her. were shown. Complainant or any of the complainant witnesses had not been able to give any specific details of the date, month or the year in relation to the charges of demand of dowry or beating on failure to do so or torture by the accused persons. No written complaint of any such torture was either evidenced by her. She had only remained for 10 days in her matrimonial house and therefore, it was difficult to accept the contention that she was beaten and tortured during this period. No proof of any ill-treatment or torture – physical or mental – was either adduced. There was no other evidence on the part of her family members to show that the accused persons had indulged in cruelty. Drawing inference from all these materials, learned Trial Court acquitted the accused persons of the charges. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the evidences adduced during the trial and submitted that the Learned Trial Court has erroneously disbelieved the evidences on record only on the basis of its own assumption. Complainant witnesses had consistently stated about the demand of dowry after marriage and torture –physical as well as mental –inflicted upon the complainant on failure to meet the demands. Learned Trial Court has therefore committed an error in acquitting the accused persons. Learned counsel has further submitted the findings of the Learned Trial Court that the complainant had remained in her matrimonial house for ten days is actually incorrect as she had remained for almost one year and she finally left her matrimonial home in December 2004 after one year of her marriage. If Special Leave to Appeal is granted, Appellate Court may have the occasion to re-appreciate the evidence on record to come to a different finding. 17. Learned counsel for the private opposite parties has defended the findings rendered by the Learned Trial Court and submitted that the material evidence on record considered in totality, do not inspire any confidence that the allegation of demand of dowry and torture on failure to do so have been established. There are no documentary evidence in support of any such payment of dowry or demand of dowry after marriage. Marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 has come to an end as Decree of Divorce has already been granted. There are no documentary evidence in support of any such payment of dowry or demand of dowry after marriage. Marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 has come to an end as Decree of Divorce has already been granted. Therefore, the impugned findings do not deserve to be questioned in appeal. 18. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the impugned judgment and also material discussion of the evidences on record made by the Learned Trial Court. On consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the petitioner has not made out any grounds to seek Special Leave to Appeal against the judgment passed by the Learned Trial Court. Accordingly, instant petition is dismissed.