Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2311 (JHR)

Ganesh Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2018-10-23

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2018
JUDGMENT : No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. and Ms. Amrita Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 are present. 2. As this matter is pending since 2008 the same is being disposed of based on the materials available on record. 3. This application is directed against the judgment dated 08.12.2006 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Cr. Appeal No. 70 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 03.04.2000 passed in Jugsalai P. S. Case No. 133 of 1996 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced accordingly has been affirmed. 4. The prosecution story in brief is that the marriage of the informant was solemnized with the petitioner in the year 1991. It has been alleged that several articles including jewellery was given and the informant was also blessed with two girl child. The allegation has been levelled that about one and half year prior to the institution of the case, the informant was asked to bring Rs. 50,000/- in cash and a colour television from her parents. On account of poverty, the parents of the informant could not fulfill the demand as a result of which she was physically and mentally tortured and was also not given proper food. It has also been alleged that she was threatened that the petitioner will divorce her and solemnize another marriage. On 03.09.1996 at about 05:00 pm all her in-laws after assaulting her and keeping the articles given in the marriage ousted her from her matrimonial home. 5. Based on the aforesaid allegation Jugsalai P.S. Case No. 133 of 1996 was instituted in which after investigation charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken charge was framed under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In course of trial five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 7. 6. In course of trial five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 7. P.W. 1, Om Prakash Verma, is the brother of the informant who had stated that his sister’s marriage was solemnized on 22.02.1991 and articles and ornaments were given at the time of marriage. He has stated that initially his sister was living peacefully but thereafter there was a repeated demand of television. He has further stated that after fifteen days when he went to the matrimonial house of his sister he found her hand fractured due to assault with a lathi. 8. P.W. 2, Kailash Prasad, is the father of the informant who had supported the prosecution case. He has stated that after giving birth to one female child torture started with respect to demand of a colour television and Rs. 50,000/- in cash. He has deposed that when his son went to meet the informant he was not permitted to do so by the petitioner. 9. P.W. 3, Dhan Muni Devi, is the mother of the informant who has stated that there was a demand of Rs. 50,000/- in cash and a colour television and for non-fulfillment of the said demand the informant was tortured. She has also stated that her daughter was driven out from her matrimonial house on 03.09.1996. She has further stated that the life of the informant is not secure in her matrimonial house. 10. P.W. 4, Dr. Umendra Prasad, has stated that on 03.09.1996 at about 09:00 pm he had examined the injuries upon the informant and he had found tender swelling on the right palm middle side, tender swelling in the left shoulder and tender swelling on the right thigh. In the opinion of the witnesses all the injuries were simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. He had proved the injury report which was marked as Exhibit – 1. 11. P.W. 5, Krishna Devi is the informant who had supported the prosecution case with respect to the assault committed upon her by the petitioner as well as the demand of Rs. 50,000/- in cash and a colour television. She has further deposed that she was ousted from her matrimonial house on account of non-fulfillment of the demand. In course of examination, she had denied that she was having an illicit relationship with Dr. Umesh Prasad. 12. 50,000/- in cash and a colour television. She has further deposed that she was ousted from her matrimonial house on account of non-fulfillment of the demand. In course of examination, she had denied that she was having an illicit relationship with Dr. Umesh Prasad. 12. The defence had examined two witnesses in support of its case. 13. D.W. 1, Maya Rao, has stated that there was a compromise between the informant and her father-in-law. 14. D.W. 2, Mata Sharan Lal, has stated that there was no demand of colour television or Rs. 50,000/- in cash by the accused. 15. The leaned trial court had convicted the petitioner while acquitting the other accused persons from the charges levelled against them. The defence had taken a plea that the leaned courts below did not meticulously examine the records of the case. It has been stated that all the witnesses except P.W. 5 are hearsay witnesses. A further plea has been taken that there is nothing on the record to suggest that there was ever a demand of dowry and as such no case under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is made out against the petitioner. The defence has also taken a plea that no independent witness has been examined and save and except P.W. 4 all the other witnesses are related to the informant (P.W. 5). A further plea has been taken that in fact due to the oblique motive of the informant no settlement could be arrived at. It has also been stated that the Investigating Officer was not examined. 16. Learned A.P.P. as well as the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have opposed this application. 17. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 5, the informant, that she has reiterated what has been stated by her in her fardbeyan. The petitioner is the husband of the informant and it has been proved that it was the petitioner was the person responsible for the demand of Rs. 50,000/- in cash and a colour television. The informant was subjected to physically assault and the same has been corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 4 who has clearly opined that three injuries were found on the person of the informant which were on account of assault by hard and blunt substance. The evidence of P.Ws. 50,000/- in cash and a colour television. The informant was subjected to physically assault and the same has been corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 4 who has clearly opined that three injuries were found on the person of the informant which were on account of assault by hard and blunt substance. The evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 have also supported the prosecution case with respect to the demand and the assault committed upon P.W.5. 18. Although P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 are related to P.W. 5 but the defence has failed to elicit any contradictions in their evidence which would indicate that they are the partisan witnesses favouring the case of P.W. 5. An offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code generally occurs inside closed doors and, therefore, it is difficult to come across independent eye-witnesses and, therefore, it becomes all the more essential for the court to examine the evidence of the relatives of the victim more strenuously and with more observance. 19. As has been stated above, there is nothing in the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 to suggest that the allegation made in the First Information Report is false and fabricated. In fact the brother of the informant who has examined as P.W. 1 has also found injury upon the person of his sister when he had gone to meet her in her matrimonial house. The defence has also failed to satisfy as to in what manner the prejudice has been caused on account of the non-examination of the investigating officer. To sum up, therefore, the evidence of P.W. 5 has been corroborated by the evidence of P.W.s 1, 2 and 3 as also the Doctor P.W. 4 and since the demand of Rs. 50,000/- in cash as well as the colour television has been proved and so is the assault committed upon the informant on account of the non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry and in such circumstance, the learned trial court had rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 20. There being no reasons to differ with the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court the same is hereby, sustained. 21. 20. There being no reasons to differ with the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court the same is hereby, sustained. 21. However with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner it appears that the petitioner is facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1996 and has also remained in custody for some time. 22. On consideration of the aforesaid scenario the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone. 23. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence. Application dismissed.