Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 841 (JHR)

Dhani Gope S/o Sitaram Gope v. State of Jharkhand

2020-09-03

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

body2020
JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard Mr. Suman Marandi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Vishwanath Ray, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party- State. 3. This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner (husband of the complainant) against the Judgment dated 16.04.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Lohardaga in Criminal Appeal No. 36/2012 whereby and whereunder the appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner by the learned trial court for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) was upheld. The petitioner was convicted under Section 498A of IPC vide order dated 04.06.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1-cum-S.D.J.M. Lohardaga in G.R. Case No. 236/2009 (Trial No. 359/12) [arising out of Lohardaga Mahila P.S. Case No. 15/2009 dated 05-06-2009] and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 Years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 498A of IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo 06 months S.I. and it was ordered that out of fine amount deposited by the petitioner, a sum to the tune of 80% will go to the informant Lila Devi as victim compensation. 4. The records of the case reveal that the petitioner along with his mother and father were charged under section 498A, 494 of IPC and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act but ultimately only the petitioner was convicted under section 498A of Indian Penal Code. Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below are perverse and accordingly, the present criminal revision petition is fit to be allowed. He submitted that the basic ingredients of the offence under Section 498A of the IPC are absent against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to Section 498A of IPC, submitted that there is no injury report and there is no assault as alleged and therefore, the case under Section 498A of IPC is not made out against the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the evidence of PW-1 as recorded in the impugned judgment and submitted that in his cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that he has not seen the assault. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the evidence of PW-1 as recorded in the impugned judgment and submitted that in his cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that he has not seen the assault. So far as PW-4 is concerned, she herself being the Informant, her testimony is not worth relying upon. The learned counsel submitted that so far as the other witnesses are concerned, they have not supported the allegation of assault. Accordingly, he submitted that the basic ingredients of Section 498A of IPC having not been satisfied, the petitioner may be acquitted. Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State 7. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party-State submitted that the learned courts below have given consistent finding in connection with the basic ingredients of Section 498A of IPC by referring to the various evidences on record. He particularly referred to the findings of the learned trial court and submitted that the learned trial court, at Page-9 of its Judgment, has recorded the findings in connection with the allegation of demand of Rs. 15,000/- as dowry. He submitted that while dealing with the charge under Section 498A of IPC against the petitioner, the learned trial court found that there is consistent, corroborative, unambiguous and trustworthy evidence of the witnesses that the accused no. 1 i.e. the petitioner subjected the informant to cruelty by several ways; firstly, by demanding Rs. 15,000/- from her, secondly, by assaulting her and driving her out several times from her matrimonial home, thirdly, he assaulted the informant by calling her Banjh and thereby, putting her into severe mental sufferings by calling her mad, as evidence has been adduced from the mouth of DW-1, by not providing her maintenance and by living with another lady. The learned trial court has also recorded that the evidences of DW-1 and DW-2, who have been selected by the accused from their own choice, are not found sufficient enough to disbelieve and discard the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. All these evidences clearly prove the charge under Section 498A of IPC against the present petitioner. 8. The learned counsel submitted that the learned appellate court also gave consistent finding and the basic ingredients of Section 498A of IPC is fully satisfied against the petitioner. Findings of this Court 9. All these evidences clearly prove the charge under Section 498A of IPC against the present petitioner. 8. The learned counsel submitted that the learned appellate court also gave consistent finding and the basic ingredients of Section 498A of IPC is fully satisfied against the petitioner. Findings of this Court 9. The prosecution case is based on a Complaint Petition being Complaint Case No. 67/2009 presented on 11.05.2009 by the Informant-Lila Devi (PW-4) against the petitioner (husband), Sita Ram Gope (Father-in-law) and Bhagtu Gope (Mother-in-law) before the court of C.J.M. Lohardaga which was sent to Lohardaga Mahila P.S. under Section 156 of Cr.P.C. for instituting F.I.R. and for investigation and accordingly, a formal F.I.R. was registered as Lohardaga Mahila P.S. Case No. 15/2009 dated 05-06-2009 under Sections 494, 498A of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It was stated in the Complaint that the Informant is legally married wife of the petitioner and their marriage was solemnized at Village- Kocha according to Hindu rites and customs about 6 years ago. The Informant went to her matrimonial house and stayed there peacefully for one year, but thereafter the petitioner and other accused persons demanded Rs. 15,000/- cash as dowry. Due to non-fulfillment of the demand, the Informant was tortured by the accused persons, physically and mentally, and was assaulted by them and proper food was not provided to her on several occasions. The Informant was kicked out from her matrimonial house on several nights and she was compelled to spend her night outside the house. It was further alleged that the petitioner alongwith other accused persons after assaulting the Informant took her signature on blank sheets of paper to be utilized against her in future and also snatched away her clothes and ornaments and ousted her from her matrimonial house. It was further alleged that the petitioner performed second marriage with one Saraswati Kumari daughter of Sikandar Yadav. However, in panchayati, the petitioner denied to have performed second marriage, but later on, he performed second marriage with Saraswati Kumari and the petitioner was living with her at his house. The Informant was sent to her matrimonial home with the petitioner, but she was again tortured and ousted by the accused persons and since then, the Informant was residing at her father’s house. 10. The Informant was sent to her matrimonial home with the petitioner, but she was again tortured and ousted by the accused persons and since then, the Informant was residing at her father’s house. 10. After submission of charge-sheet, cognizance of the offence was taken on 08.07.2009 and thereafter on 10.09.2009, the charges under Sections 494 and 498A of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 were framed against the petitioner as well as his parents. 11. This Court further finds that in course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether 09 witnesses. Out of which, PW-1 (Dayanand Yadav) is the brother, PW-2 (Lalo Devi) is the mother, PW-3 (Bhikhu Mahto) is the father of the Informant and PW-4 (Lila Devi) is the Informant herself. PW-5 (Satya Narayan Yadav) is another brother and PW-6 (Durga Yadav) is the cousin brother of Informant. PW-7 (Rajendra Oraon) is a hearsay witness. PW-8 (Ram Bilas Yadav) is also a cousin brother of the Informant. PW-9 (Gupteshwar Singh) is the Investigating Officer of the case. The prosecution has exhibited the signatures of PWs. 4, 5, 6, 8 and one Deonath Yadav on one panchayati paper (Kararnama) as exhibits. The signature of the Informant (PW-4) on the Complaint Petition has been exhibited as Exhibit-2, the endorsement on the Complaint Petition as Exhibit-4 and the formal F.I.R. as Exhibit-5. Two witnesses were examined in defence on behalf of the petitioner, Suresh Turi as DW-1 and Budhua Oraon as DW-2. 12. This Court finds that the learned trial court, after discussing and considering the evidences, both oral and documentary, of the prosecution witnesses as well as the oral evidence of the defence witnesses in detail, summarized its findings in page 9 of its Judgment. The learned trial court with regard to the charge under Section 498A of IPC against the petitioner recorded that PW-1, has specifically said that it was only Dhani Gope (the petitioner herein) who used to demand money and in cross-examination, he admitted that he has not seen the assault and assault did not take place in his presence, but demand of money was made in his presence. The learned trial court has found this witness to be an eye-witness on the point of demand of money made by the petitioner and hearsay witness on the point of assault on the Informant. The learned trial court has found this witness to be an eye-witness on the point of demand of money made by the petitioner and hearsay witness on the point of assault on the Informant. PW-2 appears to have made specific allegation against the petitioner by stating that the Informant stayed in a good manner for about six years in her sasural but did not give birth to a child, then she was being called as a banjh and petitioner contracted second marriage and in Para-2, she has said that they sent her daughter after assaulting her. The learned trial court found this witness to be a hearsay witness on the point of assault. PW-4, the Informant has made specific allegations against the petitioner in her examination in chief but no allegations were made against her parent- in-laws. PW-5 has made specific allegation against the petitioner regarding demand of money. PW-7 has said that demand of dowry was being made by the petitioner. PW-9 is the I.O. DW-1 and DW-2 have denied that the accused persons demanded money from the Informant. The learned trial court further recorded that so far the charge under Section 498A of IPC against the petitioner is concerned, there is consistent, corroborate, unambiguous and trustworthy evidence of witnesses that the petitioner subjected the Informant to cruelty by several ways, inter-alia, by demanding Rs. 15,000/- from her and by assaulting and driving her out several times from her matrimonial home, called her Banjh and put her into mental suffering. The evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 were not found sufficient enough to disbelieve and discard the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The trial court held that the evidences clearly proved the charge under Section 498A of IPC against the petitioner. 13. This Court finds that the learned appellate court also considered the evidence of the prosecution as well as the oral evidence of the defence witnesses and summarized its findings in Para-12 of its Judgment that the prosecution in order to prove its case has relied upon altogether 09 witnesses, PW-1 is an independent witness, PW-2 is mother of the Informant, PW-3 is father of the Informant, PW-4 is the Informant and PW-5, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8 are witnesses of Village Udrangi which is the place of occurrence and are material witnesses. The learned appellate court found that all the material witnesses have corroborated the factum of demand of dowry and the consequent cruelty and harassment of the Informant by the petitioner due to non-fulfillment of the demand and also the fact that a panchayati was held to pacify the matter. The learned appellate court recorded concurrent findings of facts and upheld the trial court judgment. 14. This Court finds that PW-4 (Lila Devi) is the Informant and victim of the case and she as well as PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 have supported the prosecution case on the points of demand of dowry and cruelty committed to the Informant by the petitioner and the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubts. 15. This Court is of the considered view that in terms of Section 498A of IPC, cruelty can be physical or mental and in the instant case, mental cruelty has been fully established by the prosecution by adducing evidence to the effect that the petitioner demanded Rs. 15,000/- from the victim-Informant and she was driven out several times from her matrimonial home and she was also called Banjh by the petitioner putting her into mental suffering. This Court also finds that the learned trial court considered the argument of the petitioner regarding absence of injury report of the informant and rejected the plea by stating that it is not the case of the prosecution that the informant sustained such bodily injury which was treated by a doctor and under such circumstances, there was no point in looking for an injury report. This Court does not find any irregularity, illegality or perversity in the aforesaid reasoning. This Court finds that the term cruelty has been defined by way of explanation to section 498A of Indian Penal Code which includes harassment to coerce the wife or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. The harassment as mentioned in section 498A of Indian Penal Code need not been coupled with any bodily injury in order to constitute any offence under section 498A of IPC. The harassment as mentioned in section 498A of Indian Penal Code need not been coupled with any bodily injury in order to constitute any offence under section 498A of IPC. Thus, absence of any injury report, as pointed out and argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has no bearing in the case. 16. This Court finds that both the learned courts below have carefully scrutinized the evidences of the prosecution witnesses and have recorded concurrent findings of facts and have also satisfied themselves about presence of all the basic ingredients of Section 498A of IPC while convicting the petitioner. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has rightly been convicted in the instant case. 17. On the point of sentence, the petitioner has failed to show any reason for taking a lenient view in his favour and accordingly the sentence imposed upon the petitioner does not call for any modification. 18. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments calling for any interference in revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is hereby dismissed. 19. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 20. The bail bonds furnished by the petitioner are hereby cancelled. 21. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is also dismissed as not pressed. 22. Let the Lower Court Records be immediately sent back to the court concerned. 23. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through “FAX/Email.”