Jharkhand High Court
Anil Kumar Sah Son Of Late Gulabi ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 300 of 2012
Anil Kumar Sah son of Late Gulabi Sah ... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Punam Devi W/o Sri Anil Kumar Sah
& D/o Om Prakash Soni ... ...Opp. Parties
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, A.P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : None
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
6/07.04.2021 Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, the learned A.P.P.
appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned
judgments submitted that admittedly, the marriage between
the petitioner and Opposite Party No.2 was solemnized on
21.07.1996 and as per the complaint itself, appropriate gifts
were also given during the course of marriage. He submitted
that the complaint was filed after more than 10 years on
15.12.2006 alleging that after two years of marriage, the
petitioner made a demand of Rs.2 Lakhs and assaulted and
tortured the complainant and ultimately, on 10.12.2006, the
petitioner left the complainant at her father's house. He further
submitted that as per the evidence of the complainant herself,
the demand of Rs.2 Lakhs was made for her treatment as no
child was born out of their wedlock. He also submitted that the
learned appellate court has not recorded any finding that the
demand of money was in relation to the marriage or on account
of dowry.
4. The learned counsel further submitted that without
prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the facts remains that
the petitioner was all along on bail during trial and he
remained in jail custody from 27.04.2012 to 26.05.2012 i.e. for
one month at revisional stage of the case. He further submitted
that the Complaint was filed as back as on 15.12.2006 and since
then, more than 14 years have elapsed and the present age of
the petitioner is 52 years and the present case is his first offence
and therefore, considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter,
including the facts that the case was filed after 10 years of
marriage and the main problem appears to be the fact that no
child was born out of their wedlock, some sympathetic view
may be taken. He also submitted that the petitioner is ready to
make some payment to the Opposite Party no.2 by way of
victim compensation and accordingly, the sentence of the
petitioner may be modified to the period already undergone in
custody by enhancing the fine amount.
5. The learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite
Party-State, on the other hand, opposing the prayer submitted
that under the provisions of Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code, the demand of property need not be in relation to
marriage or by way of dowry. He submitted that any demand
of property coupled with torture comes within the definition of
cruelty as defined under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code
and accordingly, even if the amount of Rs.2 Lakhs was
demanded for any purpose whatsoever, the same was coupled
with assault and torture to the Complainant and accordingly,
there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments
passed by the learned courts below.
6. The learned A.P.P. further submitted that if this Court is
inclined to modify the sentence of the petitioner, then the fine
amount may not be less than Rs.1 Lakh which may be directed
to be remitted to the Complainant by the learned court below.
7. Arguments concluded.
8. Judgment reserved.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/
