Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 316 (JHR)

Khalik Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

2020-02-14

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2020
JUDGMENT : The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 22nd January, 2014 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner-IV, Ranchi in Cr. Appeal No. 128 of 2010, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner along with co-convicts, has been partly allowed. 2. The learned trial court vide its judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.07.2010, passed in G.R. No. 4058 of 1996, convicted the petitioner along with co-convicts, namely, Sikandar Ansari, Aklima Khatoon, Rabnia Khatoon, Muneja Khatoon and Mokim Ansari, for the offence under Section 498 A of the I.P.C. and sentenced them for the aforesaid charges. 3. The learned appellate court though confirmed the conviction and sentence against the present petitioner, however acquitted rest of the co-convicts. 4. The brief facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The marriage of the informant-Saleha Khatoon was solemnized with the petitioner somewhere in the year, 1991 and thereafter, in the year 1996 the accused persons made a demand of Rs.25,000/-by way of dowry and started meeting out cruelty upon the informant. It has been alleged that the petitioner used to assault his wife and the informant was severally assaulted and was under treatment for about 2 months and after getting fit she returned to her matrimonial house where she was again assaulted by the petitioner and his family members for non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry of Rs. 25,000/-. On the basis of the information, a case under Sections 341, 323 and 498A of the I.P.C. was registered. A complaint case was subsequently registered by the father of the informant against the petitioner and all his family members being Complaint Case No. 84 of 1997 wherein after enquiry cognizance was taken under Sections 420, 406 and 498 I.P.C. It has further been stated that this Court in Cr. Revision No. 387/01 vide order dated 26.02.02 directed the trial court to amalgamate both the cases where after both the cases were amalgamated and charges were framed against the accused under section 341, 323, 498A of IPC. 5. Learned Amicus appearing for the petitioner submits that there is a major contradiction in the F.I.R and the deposition witnesses. Revision No. 387/01 vide order dated 26.02.02 directed the trial court to amalgamate both the cases where after both the cases were amalgamated and charges were framed against the accused under section 341, 323, 498A of IPC. 5. Learned Amicus appearing for the petitioner submits that there is a major contradiction in the F.I.R and the deposition witnesses. He further submits that on the perusal of the F.I.R. it transpires that the informant has alleged a specific date of incident i.e. 19.11.1996 and has further stated that she was subjected to mental torture and assault by the entire family members for a demand of dowry, but on the other hand, in her deposition as P.W.-1 she has stated that she was subjected to torture and assault immediately after one month of her marriage by the entire family members which itself is contradictory. Moreover, no such specific date of incident has been mentioned by the informant in her deposition and also no specific allegation has been levelled against this petitioner in her deposition which was earlier made in the F.I.R. and only general allegation of assault and demand of dowry has been made against all the accused persons. He further submits that the father of the informant who was P.W.-2 has narrated some different set of stories and has stated that her daughter was used to being thrown out of her in-laws house after 15 to 20 days of her marriage by all the accused persons, but he in his deposition has never averred a specific allegation against any of the accused including the petitioner which is not in consonance with the allegation made in the F.I.R. Further he has deposed in his cross-examination that this petitioner who is the husband of the informant was in custody on the date of the alleged offence and this fact falsifies the entire set of allegation made against the petitioner in the present case. He contended that the F.I.R. has been lodged after a delay of 4 years and the delay has not been explained. Relying upon the aforesaid submission, the learned Amicus prays for acquittal of the present petitioner. 6. Per contra, learned Addl. P.P. submits that there is no error in the impugned judgments and the instant application deserves to be dismissed. 7. Relying upon the aforesaid submission, the learned Amicus prays for acquittal of the present petitioner. 6. Per contra, learned Addl. P.P. submits that there is no error in the impugned judgments and the instant application deserves to be dismissed. 7. After hearing the parties and perusing the impugned judgments including the lower Court records, it appears that admittedly there were general allegations against the petitioner and the co-convicts, but the learned appellate Court has acquitted rest of the co-convicts who were admittedly family members of the petitioner and convicted the petitioner alone. From record it further transpires that no independent witnesse has been examined by the prosecution to establish the case against the petitioner. The learned appellate court in his finding has given an observation in para-12 of the judgment dated 22.01.2014 while acquitting the other accused persons that “No independent witnesses has come up to corroborate the fact of making demand of dowry or assaulting the informant. There is no circumstantial evidence as well. Medical evidence would have corroborated the factum of assault which is absent.” This very finding in itself is sufficient to prove that since allegations against all the accused persons are similar as per deposition of the prosecution witnesses and when the other accused persons have already been acquitted on the same set of evidences, then the conviction of the petitioner is not tenable in the eyes of law. The allegation of Rs. 25000/-as dowry is a general allegation and no specific deposition has been led by the prosecution witnesses. Further the delay of more than 4 years has not been explained at all by the prosecution. This issue has not been taken care of by the learned Courts below in their respective judgments which made the judgments cryptic and perverse. The allegation of Rs. 25000/-as dowry is a general allegation and no specific deposition has been laid by the prosecution witnesses. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and discussions the instant revision application is allowed and the judgment dated 08.07.2010, passed by the learned trial court and the judgment dated 22.01.2014 passed by the learned appellate court, are hereby, set aside. 9. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. 10. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee shall reimburse the learned Amicus on submission of bill(s) for this case. 9. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. 10. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee shall reimburse the learned Amicus on submission of bill(s) for this case. He shall be paid as provided under the Notification dated 23.11.2017. 11. Let this order be sent to the learned trial court and the District Legal Services Authority, Ranchi. 12. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith. Revision allowed.