Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 191 (TRI)

Rakesh Debnath v. State of Tripura

2022-04-12

T.AMARNATH GOUD

body2022
JUDGMENT T. Amarnath Goud, J. - This revision petition has been filed under Section 401 read with Section 397 of Cr.P.C. to examine the legality, validity, and propriety of the impugned judgment and order dated 14.01.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sepahijala, Sonamura in Crl. Appeal No. 05 of 2019 wherein and whereby the learned Appellate Court has partly allowed the appeal and upheld the order of conviction and sentence dated 20.06.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sepahijala District, Sonamura in Case No. CR(C)14 of 2016 wherein the learned Trial Court convicted the petitioner under Section 498A of IPC and sentenced him to suffer RI for 3(three) years and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment, he is to suffer RI for 3(three) months. 2. The facts of the case in brief, which may be relevant for the present purpose and manifest on the record are that the victim filed an ejahar against the petitioner and his mother Smt. Parul Bala Debnath {i.e. Mother-in-law of the victim/Complainant} alleging that on 14.03.2011 her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner herein, Sri Rakesh Debnath as per social rites and customs. In her marriage, golden earring, golden ring, furniture sets, etc., were given by her parents. After her marriage, the victim/complainant stayed at her matrimonial house peacefully for about one and half years, and out of their wedlock, she gave birth to her daughter, namely, Papiya Debnath. After her birth, the accused persons often would misbehave with the complainant, and on 14.04.2013 with the ill advice of co-accused Smt. Parul Bala Debnath i.e. the mother-in-law of the victim/complainant, her husband asked the complainant to bring Rs. 30,000/- and one colour T.V. from her parent's house. The complainant expressed the inability of her parents to meet their demand for money and TV due to their poverty. On this issue, on 20.04.2012, her husband tortured her physically and mentally with the ill advice of the co-accused i.e. her mother-in-law. The petitioner herein that is the accused used to come home late at night in drunken condition and would assault her wife and co-accused, the mother-in-law used to keep the complainant and her daughter without food throughout the day. On her claim of food, she was harassed mentally and physically. Due to such assault and torture complainant often fell ill and she informed the matter to her parents. On her claim of food, she was harassed mentally and physically. Due to such assault and torture complainant often fell ill and she informed the matter to her parents. They visited her marital home and assured the accused persons to give the money amounting to Rs. 30,000/- and a colour T.V. later on. Despite such torture, the complainant continued to stay at her husband's house. It is also alleged that thereafter on 24.08.2015 both the accused persons had severely tortured her physically and mentally on the issue of their demand of money and colour T.V. and ousted her from their house telling her that unless their demand was fulfilled she would have no place in their house. Then being helpless, she took shelter at her parents' house with her minor daughter. It is also narrated by the complainant that she reported the last incident to the local elders, and then one meeting was held for settlement wherein the accused persons did not bring complainant and her daughter to their house. She being very poor due to financial crisis could not lodge the complaint in the Court in time for which delay occurred in lodging the complaint. Thereafter, the complainant registered a case before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sepahijla District, Sonamura bearing registration No. CR(C) 14 of 2016. 3. To prove the charge, the prosecution side examined six witnesses whereas the petitioners did not adduce any evidence in their defence. But both of them were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Their case was of total denial as is apparent from their answers to the questions asked under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. 4. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court passed an impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.06.2019 wherein the learned Trial Court convicted the petitioner and the co-accused under Section 498-A of IPC. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence date 20.06.2019 passed by the learned CJM Sepahijala, Sonamura in Case No. CR(C) 14 of 2016, the petitioner herein, preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Sepahijala, Sonamura in Crl. Appeal No. 05 of 2019, wherein, the Appellate Court acquitted the co-accused, Smt. Parul Bala Debnath, the mother-in-law of the complainant on the benefit of doubt. Appeal No. 05 of 2019, wherein, the Appellate Court acquitted the co-accused, Smt. Parul Bala Debnath, the mother-in-law of the complainant on the benefit of doubt. But, dismissed the appeal vide impugned judgment and order dated 14.01.2020 against the present petitioner, Sri Rakesh Debnath, the husband of the complainant/victim. 6. The petitioner's husband being highly aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 14.01.2020 passed by the learned Appellate Court preferred this instant petition and prayed of the following reliefs:- 'a. Admit the revision petition; b. Call for the records; c. Issue notice upon the respondent and d. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the evidence on record be pleased enough to set aside/quash the impugned judgment and order dated 14.01.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sepahijla, Sonamura in Crl Appeal 05 of 2019 wherein and whereby the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and arbitrarily upholding the order of conviction and sentence dated 20.06.2019 passed by learned CJM, Sepahijla, Sonamura in case No. CR(C)14/2016 wherein the learned Trial Court convicted the petitioners under Section 498A of IPC and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 3(three) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to payment of suffer RI for further 3(three) months. AND To pass any other appropriate order/orders as your Lordship may deem fit and proper for the interest of justice.' 7. Heard Mrs. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State respondent. 8. It is seen that though on merit the complaint of 498-A of IPC has been made out and the Trial Court has convicted Rakesh Debnath, the husband, and Parul Bala Debnath, the mother-in-law of the complainant but in the appeal, the lower Appellate Court has acquitted the mother-in-law and confirmed the conviction of the husband, the petitioner herein. After seeing the evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the allegations made with regard to attracting Section 498-A of IPC, are not convincing and, accordingly, the same is set aside. 9. During the course of the argument, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has placed on record a copy of the judgment passed in TS(DIV) 06 of 2021 dated 27.07.2021 pertaining to the dissolution of marriage. 9. During the course of the argument, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has placed on record a copy of the judgment passed in TS(DIV) 06 of 2021 dated 27.07.2021 pertaining to the dissolution of marriage. Since the matter has been settled amongst them and which has come to the quietus, this Court feels that the pendency of any litigation between the husband and wife would again trigger the litigation. 10. In view of the above observation, the instant criminal revision petition stands allowed. The order dated 14.01.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sepahijala, Sonamura in Crl. Appeal No. 05 of 2019 is set aside and the petitioner herein is acquitted and as a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.