Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1604 (JHR)

Parvez Alam v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-09-13

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT Deepak Roshan J. - The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 29.04.2013 passed by the learned Principal Session Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2011, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 25.04.2011, passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jamshedpur in G. R. Case No. 63 of 2004 (T. R. No. 631 of 2011) whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence committed under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional sentence for three months was imposed, has been sustained. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the marriage of the informant was solemnized with the petitioner-Parvez Alam in the year 2005. After marriage, she started residing with her husband-petitioner in her in-laws'' house. After sometime of marriage, her husband demanded Rs. 80,000/- from her and finally when the wife-informant was subjected to torture, the demand of Rs. 80,000/- was fulfilled. After payment of the aforesaid demand of Rs. 80,000/-, a further demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- was also made for which she was also assaulted by the accused persons and was ousted from her in-laws house. As a result she took shelter at her father''s house where she was also assaulted by the accused persons. 3. Pursuant the aforesaid complaint made by the wife, a formal FIR was registered and the case was investigated. After investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner along with other six co-accused, who were the family members of the petitioner. The cognizance was taken in the matter and the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. Based upon the evidences, both oral and documentary, laid before him, the learned trial court convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him for a period of two years. However, the learned trial court acquitted the other co-accused who were the family members of the petitioner. 5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the order passed by the learned trial court before the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur. However, the learned trial court acquitted the other co-accused who were the family members of the petitioner. 5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the order passed by the learned trial court before the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur. The learned appellate court after considering the evidence of the witnesses and the material available on record concurred with the finding of the learned trial court and also did not interfere with the sentence. 6. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that seven accused persons were facing trial but six of them were acquitted by the learned trial court itself on the similar allegations. He further submits that there are two sets of occurrence; one, the occurrence which was alleged to have taken place at the matrimonial house of the informant and another; offence alleged to have taken place at the parents'' house of the informant. He further submits that with regard to the first occurrence no specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner. He further submits that the informantwife herself has deposed that after departure of the petitioner to Saudi Arabia in 2006, she did not have any contact with the petitioner, so there was no question for demand of dowry or mental torture by the petitioner during that period. He further submits that as per the evidence of P.W. 7 and P.W. 9, there was no demand of dowry by this petitioner. Further even P.W. 2 has deposed that the occurrence has not occurred before him. Interestingly, the Investigating Officer has never went to the matrimonial house of the informant for investigation. He further submits that this is a fit case where the petitioner should be allowed relief by this Court as no offence is made out under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Das, lastly submits that even assuming the case to be true, in that case also it is an admitted fact that the petitioner went to Saudi Arabia in the year 2006 itself and the informant-wife was ousted on 11.03.2007, in the absence of the petitioner who returned from Saudi Arabia on 10.12.2008 as such, demand of dowry or assault, if any, could not have been made by the petitioner. Even if in the remotest case the petitioner is found guilty then he should be granted the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 7. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that this is a fit case where the petitioner should be sent back to custody in the backdrop of categorical finding by the courts below that even after return from Saudi Arabia, the petitioner came to his in-laws'' place and demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- and assaulted the wife. As such no relief should be granted to the petitioner. 8. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and keeping in mind the limited scope of the revisional jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of the courts below and as such the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby, confirmed. 9. Now coming to the alternative argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act be granted to the petitioner in back ground that he was not directly involved in assault and there is no criminal antecedent except the present one, I am of the considered opinion that sending the petitioner back to prison will not serve any fruitful purpose, as such, instead of sending the petitioner back to prison, interest of justice would be sufficed by modifying the sentence in lieu of compensation to be given to the victim-wife for the alleged offence. 10. As a result, the petitioner is directed to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The petitioner shall file two sureties to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- coupled with personal bond to the effect that he shall not commit any offence and shall be of good behavior and shall maintain peace during the period of two years. If there is breach of any conditions, he will subject himself to undergo sentence as directed by the learned trial court. The bond aforesaid be filed by the petitioner within three months from the date of this judgment. 11. The petitioner is further directed to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- before the learned trial court which shall be paid as compensation to the informant-wife in view of Section 357(1)(C) of Cr.P.C. The petitioner is directed to pay the aforesaid fine of Rs. 11. The petitioner is further directed to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- before the learned trial court which shall be paid as compensation to the informant-wife in view of Section 357(1)(C) of Cr.P.C. The petitioner is directed to pay the aforesaid fine of Rs. 25,000/- within a period of three months from today before the learned trial court and the learned trial court after noticing the informant-wife shall pay the same to her after due formalities. 12. It is made clear that if the aforesaid amount is not paid within the stipulated period, the petitioner shall serve the rest of sentence as directed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court. 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions the instant revision application is disposed of. 14. The petitioner is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. 15. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.