Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1709 (JHR)

Kumar Umesh Prasad @ Putul v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-08-02

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2018
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - Heard Mr. Prakash Kumar Sahay, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned APP for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 19.06.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2008, whereby and whereunder, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 18.12.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in G.R. Case No. 471 of 1998 (T.R. No. 124 of 2007), convicting the petitioners for the offences punishable u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and sentencing them to R.I. for 02 years and a fine of Rs. 500, has been affirmed. 3. The prosecution story arises out of a complaint petition initially instituted by the victim wherein it has been stated that she was married with the petitioner No. 1 on 29.04.1996. It has been alleged that after a few days of marriage there was a friction on account of not giving colour television, Godrej Almira and a Fridge and dissatisfaction was also expressed about the quality of articles which were given as gift during her marriage. It has been alleged that when the father of the informant came for her Vidai, it was said that until their demands were not fulfilled, she would not be allowed to go with her father. Subsequently she was assaulted and ousted from her matrimonial house. The complaint case which was initially lodged was sent to the police, which ultimately led to institution of Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 94 of 1998, in which investigation was conducted which resulted in submission of charge-sheet and after cognizance was taken, charge was framed against the accused persons u/s 498A I.P.C. and u/s 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act to which the petitioners pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. Petitioners were acquitted by the learned trial court so far as the charge u/s 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned but they were convicted for the charge u/s 498A I.P.C. which was affirmed in appeal by the learned appellate court. 5. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of the informant whereas the petitioner No. 2 is the father-in-law. In course of trial 05 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 5. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of the informant whereas the petitioner No. 2 is the father-in-law. In course of trial 05 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 1, Awadhesh Kumar, who is the father of the informant, has admitted about the marriage between the informant and the petitioner No. 1 on 29.04.1996. This witness has stated that there was a demand of a watch, television and tape recorder and also amount of Rs. 6000 in lieu of the said articles. He has stated that when he has expressed his inability to fulfill the said demand, his daughter was assaulted and finally she was ousted from her matrimonial house. This witness has also referred to a letter written by petitioner No. 2 wherein a demand was placed regarding various articles. The letter has been proved and marked as Ext. 1. P.W. 2, Mahendra Prasad Singh, is the uncle of the informant who has supported the prosecution case with respect to the demand of various articles made from the side of the accused persons and on non-fulfillment of said demand, the informant was ousted from the matrimonial house. P.W. 3, Raj Kumari Devi, is the mother of the informant who has also supported the prosecution case. This witness has referred to Ext. 1, which is a letter written by the petitioner No. 2 demanding various articles and in lieu of said articles Rs. 6,000/-. P.W. 4, Jyoti Devi is the informant of this case, who has stated that after marriage she was variously tortured to get their unlawful demand fulfilled. This witness has fully supported the case of the prosecution. P.W. 5, Prem Kumar Sinha did not support the prosecution case and he has been declared hostile by the prosecution. 6. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that the Investigation Officer has not been examined which has caused prejudice to the defence. It has further been submitted that the P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 who have been examined on behalf of the prosecution are closely related to the informant, P.W. 4 and therefore their evidences are not trustworthy. It has further been submitted that the P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 who have been examined on behalf of the prosecution are closely related to the informant, P.W. 4 and therefore their evidences are not trustworthy. An alternative argument has been put forward that if this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction, the period of sentence be modified, considering the fact that the petitioners are facing rigours of criminal case since 1998 and the petitioner No. 1 has remained in custody for about 01 year and the petitioner No. 2 is now aged about 87 years. 7. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. 8. On perusal of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, it appears that the case of the informant P.W. 4 has fully been supported by P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3. Although P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 are related to the P.W. 4, but by that itself cannot lead to a conclusion that their evidences cannot be relied upon as they have corroborated each other and the prosecution has also brought on record Ext. 1, which is a letter written by the petitioner No. 2, wherein demand of various articles and in lieu of said article Rs. 6,000/- was made, which further fortifies the illegal demand made by the accused persons. The physical and mental torture committed upon the informant by the accused persons has also been proved by the witnesses. The non-examination of the Investigating Officer has not caused any prejudice to the defence in view of the corroborative nature of evidence and the place of occurrence has also sufficiently been proved by the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. In such circumstances, therefore, the prosecution having been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the petitioners have been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 498A I.P.C. by the learned trial court, which has been affirmed in appeal by the learned appellate court. The same is hereby sustained. 9. In such circumstances, therefore, the prosecution having been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the petitioners have been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 498A I.P.C. by the learned trial court, which has been affirmed in appeal by the learned appellate court. The same is hereby sustained. 9. However with respect to the sentence imposed upon the petitioners, it appears that the petitioners have been facing rigours of the criminal case for two decades and it further appears that the petitioner No. 1 has remained in custody for a considerable period and the age of the petitioner No. 2, if he is alive, is now about 87 years. On consideration of the said facts, it would be desirable that the order of sentence passed against the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone by the petitioners and the same is modified. 10. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the order of sentence awarded to the petitioners.