Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2329 (JHR)

Surendra Mahato v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-10-23

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2018
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, Mr. Hardeo Pd. Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State is present. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 12.02.2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 47/2007 by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara, whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara on 27.07.2007 in G.R. Case No. 98/2005 (T.R. No. 316/2007), convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 1 year with a fine of Rs. 1000/- has been affirmed. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the marriage of the informant was solemnized with the petitioner on 02.05.2004 as per Hindu rites and customs. It has been alleged that after three months of marriage there was a demand of Rs. 25,000/- and a bed and on refusal the informant was subjected to torture and assault and a threat of solemnizing second marriage of the petitioner. It has also been alleged that on 03.03.2005 after taking her ornaments the informant was driven out from her matrimonial house. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegations G.R. Case No. 98/2005 was instituted in which after submission of charge- sheet cognizance was taken and thereafter charge was framed for the offences under Sections 498(A), 323/34 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In course of trial six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.1 (Bahadur Mahato @ Jaideo Mahato) is the father of the informant who has stated that after three months of the marriage there was a demand of Rs. 25,000/- and a bed for which his daughter was tortured. He has stated that several persons had gone to the P.S. and gave a written complaint. This witness has proved his signature in the written complaint marked as Exhibit-1. P.W.2 (Hiramoni Mahato) is the aunt of the informant who has supported the allegation with respect to the demand of Rs. 25,000/- and a bed and for non-fulfillment of which the informant was subjected to torture. P.W.3 (Ranjeet Mahato) has stated that he knows the informant whose marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on 02.05.2004. P.W.2 (Hiramoni Mahato) is the aunt of the informant who has supported the allegation with respect to the demand of Rs. 25,000/- and a bed and for non-fulfillment of which the informant was subjected to torture. P.W.3 (Ranjeet Mahato) has stated that he knows the informant whose marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on 02.05.2004. She has stated that after three months of the marriage quarrel had started between the informant and the petitioner. He has also stated that the petitioner had filed a case upon this witness and others. This witness appears to be an uncle of the informant. P.W.4 (Krishna Kumar Mahato) has stated that the informant was married with the petitioner on 02.05.2004 and torture had started upon her after six months of the marriage. He has stated about a demand of Rs. 25,000/- and a bed and due to non-fulfillment of the demand the informant was ousted from her matrimonial house on 03.03.2005. He has also stated that the informant had disclosed the entire incident to him. 6. In cross-examination this witness has deposed that the petitioner has also instituted a case against the informant and others in which she is also an accused. P.W.5 (Dhani Devi) is the mother of the informant who has stated that after treating her daughter properly for three months there was a demand of Rs. 25,000/- and a bed. He has stated that the informant had disclosed to her in-laws that her father cannot afford to meet such demand at which she was subjected to assault. She has further stated that the informant was ultimately ousted from her matrimonial house. She has stated that the father-in-law of the informant had also tried to outrage her modesty. P.W.6 (Sarita Devi) is the informant who has stated that after her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on 02.05.2004 she was treated properly for about three months. She has stated that the petitioner and her inlaws started demanding an amount of Rs. 25,000/- and a bed and on non-fulfillment of the said demand she was subjected to torture. She has stated that her father-in-law had also tried to outrage her modesty which was intimated by her to the petitioner. She has deposed that on 03.03.2005 the petitioner after committing assault ousted her from her matrimonial house. In cross-examination she has stated that she does not want to go back to her matrimonial house. She has stated that her father-in-law had also tried to outrage her modesty which was intimated by her to the petitioner. She has deposed that on 03.03.2005 the petitioner after committing assault ousted her from her matrimonial house. In cross-examination she has stated that she does not want to go back to her matrimonial house. She has further deposed that the demand of Rs. 25,000/- and a bed was also made to the father of the informant. She has admitted that she had not suffered any injury on her person. 7. The defence has examined two witnesses in support of its case. D.W.1 (Manoranjan Mahato) is the cousin brother of the petitioner who has stated that the informant regularly used to stay at her parents house. He has stated that she used to say that she will not stay in her matrimonial house and a Panchayati was also held to take the informant back but she refused to return back to her matrimonial house. D.W.2 (Rabindra Nath Pandey) has deposed that after staying for 10-12 days the informant wanted to return to her parents house. He has stated that on 08.03.2005 the father of the petitioner had come to take bedai but the petitioner insisted that he will leave her day after tomorrow. He has further stated that the father of the informant subsequently came with 8-10 persons and took away the informant and Rs. 10,000/- from the house of the petitioner. 8. Initially the trial proceeded against three accused persons including the petitioner but the parents-in-law of the informant were acquitted whereas the petitioner was convicted under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. 9. It is a case of the petitioner that most of the witnesses are related to the informant. It is also the case of the petitioner that it was the informant who did not want to stay in her matrimonial house in spite of repeated efforts made from the side of the petitioner. 10. Learned A.P.P., for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 11. There is no dispute with respect to the marriage of the petitioner having been solemnized with the informant. The witnesses have consistently stated that after about three months from the date of marriage there has been a demand of Rs. 10. Learned A.P.P., for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 11. There is no dispute with respect to the marriage of the petitioner having been solemnized with the informant. The witnesses have consistently stated that after about three months from the date of marriage there has been a demand of Rs. 25,000/- and a bed from the informant which could not be fulfilled which resulted in the torture and assault committed upon the informant. The witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution although are related to the informant but that by itself would not dilute their deposition in view of the consistent and corroborative nature of evidence adduced by them. The informant in her evidence has categorically supported the prosecution case as narrated by her in the written complaint made before the Police which consistently proves about the demand made from the side of the petitioner and the mental and physical torture committed upon the informant. The defence witnesses have tried to project a picture that it was the informant who was never willing to reside in her matrimonial house but the reasons for such denial is understandable in view of the continuous demand made and the torture committed upon the informant. 12. The circumstances noted above having rightly been considered by the learned trial court the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. The same is hereby affirmed. 13. 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 long and has also remained in custody for sometime. On consideration of the aforesaid facts the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone. 14. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the period of sentence.