Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 206 (GAU)

KISHORE SARMA v. STATE OF ASSAM

2019-02-14

RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. B Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S Islam, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. Also heard Mr BJ Dutta, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that the respondent No. 2 Pranita Devi was married to the present petitioner on 04.10.2006 as per Hindu rites and rituals and certain amounts of articles like furniture, gold ornament etc. were given in her marriage but unfortunately, their marriage did not survive long due to torture of husband both mentally and physically for not bringing adequate stridhan articles and also for his demand of Rs. 3 lacs. The respondent/wife returned to her parental house on 27.03.2007 for such torture and after return to her parental house, she sent her father to bring her Stridhan articles back from the house of accused petitioner on 15.06.2007 but as they have refused to give the same so, the respondent/wife filed a complaint before the SDJM (M), Bajali with an allegation of misappropriation of Stridhan property by the accused person/the petitioner and the same was registered as CR Case No. 34/07 u/s 406 of the IPC and the learned trial Court upon examination of the complainant took cognizance of the offence u/s 406 of the IPC against the accused petitioner. 3. Pursuant to the cognizance of offence against the accused petitioner, charge u/s 406 IPC was framed against him and the same was read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. During the course of trial, respondent/wife examined as many as 5 witnesses in support of her case including herself whereas the defence side adduce no evidence on their part. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court held the accused petitioner guilty u/s 406 of IPC and sentenced him to RI for 6 (six) months. On appeal being preferred, the learned appellate Court reduced the sentence to RI 3 (three) months and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default S.I for 2(two) months with a direction to pay the 50% of the fine amount to the complainant. 5. On appeal being preferred, the learned appellate Court reduced the sentence to RI 3 (three) months and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default S.I for 2(two) months with a direction to pay the 50% of the fine amount to the complainant. 5. As against the findings on two forums, the present revision has been preferred by the accused petitioner on the ground that such appreciation and findings by both the Courts below is not on proper perspective of law and facts. It has been contended that there is lack of evidence to establish about the misappropriation of Stridhan on the part of the present petitioner even though, the entrustment can be inferred. That apart, it has been contended that the respondent/wife has the habit of filing of false case for which she also filed a complaint case u/s 498A, which was registered as PRC Case No. 99/07 u/s 498A of the IPC but the accused/petitioner was acquitted from the charge. On the other hand, the respondent/wife also refused to obey the decree of restitution of conjugal rights that was filed by the petitioner vide TS No. 4/12 in the Court of Munsiff, Bajali dated 21.12.2013. Over and above, it is also submitted that there is still scope of re-union between the parties for which the petitioner is still waiting. 6. I have heard the submission of learned counsel for the respondent who has submitted that evidence on record is sufficient to prove the offence as against the accused petitioner and there is no perversity in the decision so arrived by the learned Court below and such a findings has been arrived on due appreciation of the evidence on record. Bearing in mind, the above submissions, I have also gone through the evidence on record and the appreciation that was made by the Court. It can be noted that the respondent/wife in support of her case has examined herself as well as her father to the effect that soon after the marriage due to the conduct of the present petitioner who harassed her mentally and physically, she has to return her parental house in a compelling situation by leaving her Stridhan articels in the house of present petitioner. Subsequently, on their approach to bring back the Stridhan articles the accused refused to return the same. Subsequently, on their approach to bring back the Stridhan articles the accused refused to return the same. Thereafter, on the strength of Search Warrant issued by the learned trial Court major portion of Stridhan was recovered except gold ornament, one mosquito-net, one brass tray and cash worth Rs. 3,000/-. 7. Other witnesses PW-2 and PW-3 have also stated that they knew about the fact that the respondent wife could not continue her marital life with her husband for which she has returned back to her house. They also testified that certain amount of golden ornament, wooden furniture, utensils and clothes were given during the marriage of the respondent and they also saw that certain articles were brought to the house of the respondent/wife from the house of the accused petitioner. Further, PW-5 who is the manager of Suchitra Jewellers, Pathsala, who manufactured gold ornament has stated about furnishing some gold ornament to the respondent/wife by issuing the money receipt (for her marriage). Thus, from the evidence on record, it can be found that testimony of the PW-1/the victim wife has been supported by the other evidence on record. The accused petitioner however, failed to rebut the evidence on record that he did not misappropriate the same after such entrustment of the Stridhan property. Unlike other criminal offences entrustment (in case of marriage) of the Stridhan property to the husband can be construed as soon as marriage between the parties was solemnized and question of such misappropriation was found as soon as such property is retained by the husband or in-laws refusing to return on demand by wife. As per law the respondent/wife's Stridhan property, in the Indian society is stated to be exclusive property of the wife who has exclusive domain over such property and husband and her in-law bound to return such Stridhan property to his wife on her demand. 8. In the instant case, the evidence on record reveals that the petitioner has given a list of Stridhan articles in her complaint petition and during the course of the trial while executing the Search Warrant almost all the articles were recovered except gold ornament, one mosquito-net, one brass tray and cash worth Rs. 3,000/-. 9. 8. In the instant case, the evidence on record reveals that the petitioner has given a list of Stridhan articles in her complaint petition and during the course of the trial while executing the Search Warrant almost all the articles were recovered except gold ornament, one mosquito-net, one brass tray and cash worth Rs. 3,000/-. 9. From all the matters on record, the offence of 406 IPC is made out against the accused petitioner and there being no illegality and irregularity in such findings and it calls for no interference. However, in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that still there is a scope of re-union between the parties now, the accused petitioner is in legal battle since 2007 with a better hope to reconcile between the parties and to restore their relationship while maintaining conviction petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. fifty thousand only), in default SI for 2 (two) months. The amount so deposited be given to the complainant/respondent wife as a compensation. The petitioner will deposit the amount before the learned trial Court within 6 (six) weeks from today. Return the LCR forthwith.