Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 825 (JHR)

Aarti Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2018-04-11

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2018
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The informant is the petitioner who seeks special leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 24th August 2016 passed in C.P. Case No.1666/2009, T.R. No.1187/2016 by the learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad where under the accused persons i.e. the opposite parties no.2 to 4 have been acquitted of the charge under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The case of the complainant, as made out from her complaint lodged before the learned trial court, inter alia alleged that at the time of her marriage with the accused opposite party no.1 on 11th July 2007 the parents of the complainant had spent Rs. 6 lakhs. After her marriage she went to matrimonial home at Punjabi Mohalla, District Lakhisarai. After sometime the accused persons started demanding Rs.50,000/- cash and a motorcycle. When she refused to fulfill the demand, the accused persons started torturing her mentally and physically. On coming to know about it, her father and brother came to her matrimonial home and tried to pacify the matter, but the accused persons remained adamant. She was brought to her Maike at Bhuli, Dhanbad where on 20th July 2008 she gave birth to a child. On being informed of the birth of the child, the accused persons remained indifferent. The father-in-law, the husband and his elder brother-opposite party no.4 thereafter arrived at her Maike for Bidai and demanded Rs.50,000/- and a motorcycle. They were pacified and the complainant was sent to her matrimonial home, but the demand continued and she was physically and mentally tortured. When she informed her parents on 12th August 2009, her brother and father came there but the accused persons did not allow them to see the complainant. With the intervention of the villagers, the complainant was allowed to see them but they gave Bidai of the complainant only after getting signature on some paper and keeping all the articles of the complainant by her mother-in-law, husband and husband’s sisters. She returned to her Maike in unhealthy condition and was undergoing treatment. After informing the matter to the Bhuli Out Post in writing, she was advised to file a case in the Court as no action was taken. She returned to her Maike in unhealthy condition and was undergoing treatment. After informing the matter to the Bhuli Out Post in writing, she was advised to file a case in the Court as no action was taken. After examination of the complainant and the inquiry through statements of her witnesses, the learned trial court summoned the accused persons to face trial under Section 498A of the I.P.C. vide order dated 12th May 2010. The charges were explained to them in Hindi on 22nd August 2012 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Their case was total denial of occurrence and pleaded innocence. 4. Complainant examined four witnesses including herself. Laxmi Devi (C.W.1) is the mother, C.W.2 is the complainant, C.W.3 did not turn up for his cross-examination after charge. Therefore, his examination-in-chief was not considered as it had no evidentiary value. Deepak Kumar Paswan is C.W.4. The mother of the complainant deposed about the marriage of the complainant with the accused no.1 and that she was brutally assaulted when she was pregnant. She got fracture in her waist. On being brought to the Maike she gave birth to a child. Her son-in-law was informed about the birth of the child, but he did not come to see the baby. After 3-4 months, complainant’s father-in-law and elder brother of her husband came and demanded Rs.50,000/- and a motorcycle. They also quarreled. Thereafter she gave Bidai of her daughter and as soon as she reached Lakhisarai, her husband washed her vermilion and snatched her child. She was continued to torture and not permitted to talk. When her son went there, the father-in-law did not permit him to enter the house. She again became pregnant but underwent miscarriage due to assault. She was also assaulted when she went to her matrimonial house. After 3-4 months when her husband, son and daughter went to the matrimonial house of the complainant, they found her in a very bad condition. Therefore, they brought her to the Maike and got her treated. The accused persons got signature of the complainant on a plain paper. During her cross-examination she stated that she had gone to Lakhisarai in the winter season in the year 2009; she had not informed the Police at Lakhisarai; the matter was reported to Dhanbad Police Station in 2009. Therefore, they brought her to the Maike and got her treated. The accused persons got signature of the complainant on a plain paper. During her cross-examination she stated that she had gone to Lakhisarai in the winter season in the year 2009; she had not informed the Police at Lakhisarai; the matter was reported to Dhanbad Police Station in 2009. This witness had not stated about her going to Lakhisarai in her statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. She further stated that her daughter was treated in the year 2009 by Dr. Rekha Rani. She has filed another case against six persons of the accused family after one year of filing this case. 5. C.W.2 is the complainant herself who has supported her case through her deposition on the point of marriage, demand of Rs.50,000/-, a motorcycle and torture on refusal to give it. She also deposed about the birth of a child when none of the accused persons came to see her and after four months the accused persons came to her Maike and quarreled on the demand of dowry. She got aborted after her second conception. Her mother, younger sister and brother were also assaulted when they went to her at matrimonial house. She along with father and brother returned back to Bhuli and had been living at Maike. She further stated in her cross-examination that the complaint was filed against these persons in the year 2009. She had gone to her matrimonial home on the last occasion in November, 2008 and stayed there till August 2009 and returned back on 14th August 2009. She had informed the matter at Lakhisarai but there is no documentary evidence to that effect. She could not produce the information given to the Police Station at Dhanbad. She further stated that she had filed the case within a week after returning back from her matrimonial house. Her husband had filed a case at Lakhisarai for restitution of conjugal rights which has been disposed of. The present case has been filed after filing of that case. Her mother has also filed a case against the accused persons in the year 2010. 6. C.W.4, brother of the complainant, in his examination-in-chief stated that sometime after the marriage of his sister a demand of Rs.50,000/- and a motorcycle was made. When it was not being paid, it led to the torture of the complainant. Her mother has also filed a case against the accused persons in the year 2010. 6. C.W.4, brother of the complainant, in his examination-in-chief stated that sometime after the marriage of his sister a demand of Rs.50,000/- and a motorcycle was made. When it was not being paid, it led to the torture of the complainant. She was not permitted to speak to her parents and her brother and sister. These accused persons had arrived at Bhuli and demanded money and asked his sister to accompany them. When they showed their inability due to illness, the accused persons assaulted and fled. The matter was reported to the Bhuli Police Station but no case was registered. In cross-examination he stated that three cases have been filed by his sister and this is the first case. After filing of this case, the accused persons had arrived in December 2009 at night and stayed for one hour. This case is of the year 2008. When she came to Bhuli in the year 2008, she had an injury in her waist and she was treated in a private nursing home at Bhuli and the matter was also reported to the Police Station in the year 2008. After 1½ months of giving information to the Police Station, this case was filed in the Court. He was told about the torture by the complainant at Lakhisarai. 7. Defence adduced the following documents :- (I) Exhibit A is the certified copy of the order dated 23.4.2010 passed in T.S. (Mat) Suit No.116/2009 (II) Exhibit B is the certified copy of judgment dated 27.1.2014 passed by Shri Om Shankar, J.M., 1st Class, Lakhisarai in C.P. Case No.606 C/09/TR 1781/10. (III) Exhibit C is the copy of agreement arrived at Mediation Centre, Dhanbad in Misc. Case No.394/2013. (IV) Exhibit D is the agreement dated 25.9.2013 in Misc. Case No.319/13 before the District Mediation Centre, Dhanbad (V) Exhibit E is the affidavit bearing no.9476/2009 sworn in by the complainant (VI) Exhibit E/1 is the affidavit bearing no. 9477 sworn by the father of the complainant (VII) Exhibit F is the certified copy of the plaint of Title Suit (Mat) No.116/2009 (VIII) Exhibit G is the certified copy of the order dated 28.3.14 passed in C.P. Case No.1224/10. 8. 9477 sworn by the father of the complainant (VII) Exhibit F is the certified copy of the plaint of Title Suit (Mat) No.116/2009 (VIII) Exhibit G is the certified copy of the order dated 28.3.14 passed in C.P. Case No.1224/10. 8. The learned court scrutinized the evidence on record and observed as under : (i) All the witnesses are either mother or brother of the complainant. (ii) There has been a case and counter case between the parties. (iii) There is no specific date of any occurrence given by the complainant at Lakhisarai in 2009. (iv) The incidence at Lakhisarai was in presence of her father and paper was also prepared but that document was not brought on record. (v) C.W.4 in his deposition at paragraph-17 has stated that this case was filed in the year 2008, whereas this case was filed on 2nd September 2009. He had also stated that during the period of 2007-09 none of his family members had gone to the matrimonial home of the complainant which are contrary to the statements of other witnesses. In paragraph-19 he stated that in the year 2008 when his sister had come to Bhuli, she had injury in her waist which was treated in a private nursing home and the matter was reported to the Police. He further stated at paragraph-20 that after 1½ months of giving information to the Police, this case was filed in the Court whereas the case was filed on 2nd September 2009. (vi) No report of injuries or treatment was adduced by the complainant or the witnesses. (vii) Not even a single independent witness was examined. (viii) Not even the father or any neighbour of the complainant came forward to corroborate the complainant’s version. (ix) Out of the nine witnesses named, only three of them came to depose including the complainant. No explanation has been given for non-examination of other witnesses which can lead to adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act. 9. Learned trial court also had doubts on the question of jurisdiction since, as per the complaint and the evidence of CWs, the alleged demand of Rs.50,000/-, a motorcycle and mental and physical torture to the complainant due to non-fulfillment of the demand had taken place at Lakhisarai at her matrimonial home in Bihar. 9. Learned trial court also had doubts on the question of jurisdiction since, as per the complaint and the evidence of CWs, the alleged demand of Rs.50,000/-, a motorcycle and mental and physical torture to the complainant due to non-fulfillment of the demand had taken place at Lakhisarai at her matrimonial home in Bihar. However, it has been averred in paragraph-6 of the complaint that in the year 2008 these accused persons had arrived at the Maike of the complainant and demanded Rs. 50,000/- and a motorcycle. Learned court observed that mere demand of dowry does not suffice and constitute the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. Harassment to the complainant to coerce her to meet the unlawful demand has not been established as there is no medical evidence of any treatment as a result of torture. The statements of CWs are also inconsistent and contradictory to each other. There has also been delay in filing of the case as according to her, she returned back to her Maike on 14th August, 2009, but the case was instituted on 2nd September 2009, after 18 days without any explanation. Based on these analysis of the material evidence on record, learned trial court acquitted the accused persons of the charge under Section 498(A) of the I.P.C. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has questioned on the findings of the learned court. He submits that evidence of the complainant, her mother and brother are consistent on the point of demand of dowry, torture and ill-treatment on failure to do so. The complainant had undergone miscarriage due to assault after she conceived for the second time. Even on the birth of child on the first occasion, the accused persons failed to come and see her. She was forcibly taken to her matrimonial house as a result of unwarranted pressure and quarrel with her family members. There is a consistent case of demand of Rs.50,000/- and a motorcycle and torture on failure to meet it. On the wake of such evidence on record, learned trial court committed serious error. Therefore, special leave to appeal may be granted to the petitioner. 11. Learned counsel for the private opposite parties has supported the findings rendered by the trial court on all counts. On the wake of such evidence on record, learned trial court committed serious error. Therefore, special leave to appeal may be granted to the petitioner. 11. Learned counsel for the private opposite parties has supported the findings rendered by the trial court on all counts. He submits that not only are there inconsistency in the statements of the complainant witnesses, but the ingredients of offence have not been established beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. The ingredients as to the date, time, demand of 50,000/- and a motorcycle, the instances of assault, the injury inflicted on the complainant and treatment, if any, taken under the Doctor, have not been evidenced in any fashion. All the allegations are vague and unsubstantiated. In such circumstances, conviction could not have been recorded by the learned trial court against the accused persons of such a serious charge. Therefore, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 12. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties at some length and also gone through the impugned judgment and analysis of the evidence done by learned trial court as evident from the record. 13. On consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and the discussions made herein above in the light of the material evidence on record, we are of the view that the learned trial court had sufficient reason to come to a finding of acquittal of the accused persons of the charge under Section 498(A) of the I.P.C. Therefore, we do not find any grounds to allow special leave to appeal to the petitioner to assail the impugned judgment before the appellate court. The instant petition stands dismissed.