Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1722 (JHR)

Narayan Giri v. State of Jharkhand

2019-09-28

RAJESH KUMAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. R.P. Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 08.02.2006 and order of sentence dated 13.02.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Ghatsila, East Singhbhum in Sessions Trial Case No.336 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 326, 307 & 498-A of I.P.C and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for each of the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 307 of the IPC and with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default to pay the same, he has been further stand to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. The appellant has further been awarded a sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and with a fine of Rs. 2000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the IPC. In default to pay the fine, he has been further stand to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the present appellant, who happens to be son-in-law of the informant while sleeping with his wife and children in the house of the informant, he had caused hurt to the victim namely Basanti Giri by knife (Bhuzali). The victim-daughter of the informant has raised an alarm then appellant fled away. The informant has rushed to the room where he found his daughter in unconscious condition and immediately she has been taken to Singh Nursing Home, Ghatsila where she has been treated. She came out from unconsciousness after three days. The injury has been found on the head, neck and cheek. Reason for incident has been disclosed as demand of Rs. 20,000/- as dowry by the appellant. The appellant had demanded Rs. 20,000/- for the purpose of business at the instigation of Mr. Purno Bhuiya (brother-in-law of the appellant). 4. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, Baharagora P.S. Case No. 70/2003 was instituted for the offence under Sections 341, 326, 307, 498(A) and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Investigation was culminated in submission of the charge-sheet. Purno Bhuiya (brother-in-law of the appellant). 4. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, Baharagora P.S. Case No. 70/2003 was instituted for the offence under Sections 341, 326, 307, 498(A) and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Investigation was culminated in submission of the charge-sheet. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and charge has been framed under Sections 341, 326, 307, 498(A) and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In course of the trial, five witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.1, Basanti Giri (the wife of the appellant) is the victim. P.W.2 is Dilip Giri who is independent witness and neighbour of the informant. P.W.3 is Kumari Jayanti Jena, sister of the victim and daughter of the informant. P.W.4, Gunadhar Jena who is the father of the victim and father-in-law of the appellant. P.W.5 is the doctor who has proved the injury. All the witnesses have supported the incident and nothing has come out in the cross to disbelieve the statement made by the witnesses. 6. P.W.1 (Victim) has clearly stated that after one year of her marriage, her husband used to ill-treat her and has also demanded Rs. 20,000/- for the business purposes at the instigation of Purno Bhuiya (brother-in-law of the appellant). On 30.06.2003 the appellant had come to the in-law’s house where three days before the victim along with her two children has been left by the appellant. After taking meal the appellant has slept along with daughter and the victim has slept with her younger son in same room. There was no door and it was an open room. The father of the victim was sleeping in the Varandah near the room. He has rushed into the room on being alarm raised by the victim and saw his daughter in critical condition and also saw the appellant was fleeing away from the place of occurrence. The informant has supported the demand of Rs. 20,000/- at the instigation of Purno Bhuiya for the business purpose. 7. So far as the demand of dowry is concerned. From the evidence on record, it is evident that the demand of Rs. The informant has supported the demand of Rs. 20,000/- at the instigation of Purno Bhuiya for the business purpose. 7. So far as the demand of dowry is concerned. From the evidence on record, it is evident that the demand of Rs. 20,000/- by the appellant will not come under the definition of dowry. Dowry has been defined under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 which reads as under: “Section 2 (Definition of Dowry):- In this Act, “dowry” means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly— (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person; at or before [or any time after the marriage] [in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include] dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.” 8. Thus the demand of Rs. 20,000/- for the purpose of business will not come under the definition of dowry. The court below has rightly not convicted the appellant under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. So far as Section 498(A) of the I.P.C. is concerned, the court below has rightly convicted the appellant as there is evidence by the injured victim (P.W.1) that there was a demand of Rs. 20,000/- and also harassment by the appellant. So far as Sections 307 and 326 of the I.P.C. is concerned. The injury is grievous in nature as it has been caused by the knife blow (Bhuzali) and the small finger of the left hand has been severed and the cut injury is on the face, head and neck. Thus, ingredient of Sections 307 and 326 of the I.P.C. is made out. Oral as well as medical evidence is sufficient to connect the appellant with the above sections for which he has been charged and tried. 9. Thus, ingredient of Sections 307 and 326 of the I.P.C. is made out. Oral as well as medical evidence is sufficient to connect the appellant with the above sections for which he has been charged and tried. 9. In view of above discussion and material available on record, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of conviction dated 08.02.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Ghatsila, East Singhbhum in Sessions Trial Case No.336 of 2003, whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 307, 326 and 498(A) of the I.P.C. The incident is of the year 2003 and P.W.1 (victim and wife of the appellant) has answered to the query raised by the Court that she is interested in saving the matrimonial home and wants to maintain the relationship of husband and wife and also ready to reside with the appellant in future. 10. The incident has taken place in the house of the informant and further the demand of Rs. 20,000/- was for the purpose of business. 11. Considering the entire material available in the record and the evidence of P.W.1 (victim) this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence. Accordingly, the sentence is modified and the appellant is awarded sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for each of the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 326 of the I.P.C. with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. In default to pay the same, he shall further stand to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. The sentencing under Section 498(A) of the I.P.C. is maintained as it is. All the sentences will run concurrently. Since the convict is in custody, no further order is required to be passed. 12. With above modification, the present appeal is disposed off.