Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 540 (JHR)

Vicky Kumar Paswan v. State of Jharkhand

2023-04-19

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2023
JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant revision application is directed against the judgment dated 29.03.2016, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad; whereby the Cr. Appeal No. 21 of 2016, preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.12.2015 in G.R. No. 1052 of 2010, corresponding to T.R. No. 237 of 2015, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad, whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1,500/- under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, has been affirmed. 3. The prosecution case in brief is based upon the written report of the informant-Ram Saran Paswan alleging therein that marriage of his daughter Soni Kumari was to be solemnized with the accused Vicky Paswan and as per the agreement between the parties, Rs. 30,000/- was to be paid during Tilak ceremony. Accordingly, Rs. 30,000/- and other articles were given in the Tilak ceremony. Thereafter, mother of the Vicky Paswan, who was employee of BCCL, died. Vicky Paswan got employment in BCCL on compassionate ground. Thereafter, Vicky Paswan started demanding Rs. 2,00,000/- and motorcycle and stated that if the demand will not be fulfilled; he will not marry the daughter of the informant. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet and cognizance has been taken against the petitioner; for which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After trial, the petitioner was found guilty for the offence and he was convicted and his appeal was also rejected by the learned appellate court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned judgments on following ground: (i) Altogether six witnesses were examined but all were close relatives and interested witnesses. (ii) No I.O. has been examined in this case so as to corroborate the place and manner of occurrence. (iii) Though it has been alleged that Tilak Ceremony was solemnized but no date or month has been given nor any photograph has been produced. (iv) As a matter of fact, entire allegation is omnibus and general in nature. (ii) No I.O. has been examined in this case so as to corroborate the place and manner of occurrence. (iii) Though it has been alleged that Tilak Ceremony was solemnized but no date or month has been given nor any photograph has been produced. (iv) As a matter of fact, entire allegation is omnibus and general in nature. (v) The learned trial court has convicted the appellant merely on statement and deposition and failed to consider that if there been a case of Tilak ceremony, at least the prosecution should have proved the date and month or at least some photographs but that is missing in this case. Relying upon the aforesaid submissions he submits that no case is made out under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment and submits that there is no error in the findings given by the Courts below; as such, the conviction cannot be set aside. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record; prima facie even if the entire prosecution case is acknowledged as true then also the suspicion comes as to the fact that no date or even month of the Tilak Ceremony has been mentioned or deposed by either of the prosecution witnesses. It further transpires that on the one hand, there was no independent witness to support the fact of Tilak ceremony in the year 2009 and on the other hand; not even a single photograph has been produced before the court of law. In paragraph 5 of his deposition, the father of the victim (PW-6) had clearly admitted that he did not have any photograph of the Tilak ceremony. It further transpires from the aforesaid paragraph that several villagers were present in the Tilak ceremony; however, for the reason best known to the prosecution, none of the prosecution witnesses were examined. Thus, the very fact of Tilak ceremony becomes doubtful. Though there is an allegation that the mother of the appellant died after Tilak ceremony and thereafter he got job on compassionate basis and thereafter he demanded money but even the date or month of the death of the mother of the appellant is not deposed by either of the prosecution witnesses. 7. Though there is an allegation that the mother of the appellant died after Tilak ceremony and thereafter he got job on compassionate basis and thereafter he demanded money but even the date or month of the death of the mother of the appellant is not deposed by either of the prosecution witnesses. 7. Apart from aforesaid discrepancy, it also transpires that the court below has committed an error inasmuch as, all the other co-accused have been acquitted for the charge under Dowry Prohibition Act; however, only the appellant has been convicted for the same though the evidences were same and similar against all the co-accused. 8. Needless to say, there are several contradictions between the prosecution witnesses and due to non-examination of I.O. and any independent witness it is very difficult to accept the prosecution case and thus it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts. At this stage, it is also relevant to refer the settled principle that when two plausible views are possible, one in favour of the accused and one against him, then the court should follow the favourable option. Both the courts below have failed to appreciate all these aspects in proper perspective which makes the order perverse. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the instant application is allowed and judgment and order dated 08.12.2015, passed by the learned trial court and the judgment dated 29.03.2016, passed by the learned appellate court, are hereby, quashed and set aside. 10. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bond. 11. Let a copy of this order and the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.