Jharkhand High Court
Tuplal @ Tuklal Sao vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 153 of 2012
Tuplal @ Tuklal Sao, Son of Khusar Sao, resident of Village-
Jeruadih, P.O. and P.S. Dhanwar, District-Giridih.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
Through: Video Conferencing
---
06/08.04.2021
1. Heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Tapas Roy, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of opposite party-State.
3. The present criminal revision petition is directed against
the judgment dated 19th October, 2011 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Giridih in Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 2010,
whereby the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner has been
dismissed. The judgment of conviction dated 20.08.2010 was
passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Giridih in G.R. Case No. 2062/2006 (T.R. No. 180/2010) arising
out of Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 136/2006), whereby the
petitioner was convicted under Section 498-A of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for
six months and pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of fine, the
petitioner has been directed to undergo imprisonment for 15
days.
Arguments of the Petitioner
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset,
submits that he is confining his arguments on the point of
sentence.
5. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has
almost served his sentence and only a few days of the sentence
are left. He submits that during the stage of trial, the petitioner
has remained in custody in connection with the present case for
a period from 11.10.2006 to 01.02.2007 i.e. three months and 20
days and subsequently at the stage of revision, the petitioner
has remained in custody for a period from 16.02.2012 to
02.04.2012 i.e. one month and 17 days. Thus, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the total period of
custody of the petitioner in connection with the present case has
been 5 months and 7 days.
6. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is the
husband of the victim and the present offence is the first offence
of the petitioner. He submits that the First Information Report
was lodged as back as on 10.10.2006 and immediately the
petitioner surrendered on 11.10.2006 and almost more than
fourteen and a half years have elapsed from the date of the
F.I.R. The petitioner has suffered the rigors of the criminal case
for a long time and in such circumstances, the sentence of the
petitioner be modified. He also submits that the petitioner is
ready to pay some amount by way of fine.
Arguments of the opposite party-State
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite
party-State, on the other hand, has no serious objection to the
prayer made by the petitioner. He also submits that in case, this
Court is inclined to modify the sentence of the petitioner, the
fine amount may not be less than Rs. 5,000/- and he has no
objection if the fine amount is remitted to the victim i.e., the
wife of the petitioner, upon due identification.
Finding of this Court
8. This instant case arises out of Dhanwar P.S. case number
136/2006 dated 10.10.2006. The Prosecution case in brief is that,
the informant was married with the present petitioner about 6
years before the date of F.I.R. At the time of marriage, cash
Rs.81,000/- alongwith other household articles and ornaments
were presented to the husband and his relatives. After some
days of marriage, her husband and in-laws started demanding
one colour T.V and Hero Honda motorcycle. The informant's
father could not fulfill the aforesaid demand due to paucity of
fund. Then accused persons started harassing, assaulting and
torturing the informant. It is further alleged that in the month of
January 2003, informant was pregnant about six months and
even at that point of time, she was brutally assaulted by the
accused persons and came under situation of death, then she
informed her father. Meanwhile, her husband left home and
fled away elsewhere. Mother and uncle of informant came to
her matrimonial home, but the accused persons were adamant
for fulfilling their demand. She was brought to Calcutta for
treatment and she gave birth to child through operation, which
incurred expenses of about Rs. 60,000/-. Her husband came to
meet her, but he gave only Rs. 10,000/- and took her to
matrimonial home. After lapse of some time, the aforesaid
demand was again made to her. She again conceived. In that
situation, she was tied to a guava tree and an attempt was made
to set her ablaze, then her mother and uncle came to her
Sasuraal and again aforesaid demand was repeated before them
and she was assaulted. Thereafter, the accused persons
snatched all her ornaments and drove her away from
matrimonial home. She gave birth to second child at her
parental home.
9. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under
Section 498A of IPC and Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961. The charge was also framed under the aforesaid Sections
which was read over to the accused and explained to them in
hindi, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
During trial, the prosecution has examined altogether three
witnesses and the informant wife was examined as P.W-3. Her
mother was examined as P.W-1 and P.W-2 is her uncle. After
closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the
accused persons were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C
and denied to have committed any offence. The defence also
examined one witness as D.W-1.
10. P.W. 3 Sunita Devi is the informant-cum-victim of the
case. According to her evidence, she was married with the
present petitioner about 6 years ago from the date of the F.I.R
and she lived in her matrimonial home very well for about 6
months. Thereafter, she became pregnant, then her husband
and in-laws started demanding Hero Honda motorcycle and
one colour TV, which could not be fulfilled. Then they started
assaulting and torturing her. She informed her mother about
the incident. Her mother alongwith her uncle came there and
took her to Calcutta for treatment. A son was born after
expenditure of considerable amount of Rs. 60,000/-. Her
husband gave only Rs. 10,000/-. Again, she was sent to her
matrimonial home and again she became pregnant. Accused
persons repeated the aforesaid demand and also attempted to
set her ablaze. She went to Birni police station from where she
was sent to Raj Dhanwar police station, but no report was
registered. Hence, she went to S.P., Giridih and lodged the case.
Since then, she is living at her parent's house alongwith her two
minor children. This witness has been thoroughly cross-
examined and, inter alia, in her cross-examination she has
admitted that her husband has lodged a case against her
mother and uncle prior to this case. She has also alleged that
there is no enmity for non-payment of medical cost by the
accused persons rather, they are not taking her to matrimonial
home. She has denied the suggestion of defence that due to
non-payment of medical cost by the accused persons, she has
lodged the false case to pressurize them. The P.W-1, mother of
the informant has fully supported the case of the prosecution
and she has also been fully cross-examined by the defence.
Similarly, the P.W-2, the uncle of the informant has also fully
supported the case of the prosecution. The learned trial court
has recorded that though there have been minor contradictions,
but they are not material. The sole defence witness has denied
the entire allegations made by the prosecution.
11. After considering the materials on record and scrutinizing
the evidences, the learned trial court convicted the petitioner-
husband under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, but
acquitted him under Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
So far as the other accused were concerned, they were fully
acquitted against all the charges. The learned trial court
recorded the following findings:
"16. On the basis of above discussions, in my considered
view that in the instant case only the husband is liable for
torture and cruelty towards Sunita Devi and the prosecution
has become able to prove the charge levelled against accused
Tuplal Sao, the husband of Sunita Devi for offence punishable
u/s 498(A) of the I.P.C. The prosecution could not succeed to
prove the charge of demand of dowry against the accused
persons. Accordingly, all the accused persons are acquitted
from the charge for the offence u/s 3/4 of the D.P. Act. The
accused persons namely Khuser Sao and Chohani Devi are also
not found guilty for the offence u/s 498(A) of the I.P.C. and
accordingly they are acquitted thereof. They and their sureties
are also discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail
bonds. But the accused Tuplal @ Tuklal Sao is found guilty for
the offence punishable u/s 498(A) of the I.P.C. and he is
convicted thereunder. His bail bond is hereby cancelled and he
is taken into custody."
12. The learned appellate court also considered the materials
on record and gave its independent findings and upheld the
judgement of conviction and sentence of the petitioner. The
finding of the appellate court is as under:
"12. From the aforesaid discussions of evidence available
on record, I find that there is unrebutted testimony of
informant proving the ingredients of offence u/s 498-A IPC.
Her testimony has not been rebutted to cast any doubt on her
veracity rather, it has been corroborated by the evidence of PW
1 & PW 2 also. The insistence upon independent witnesses in
matrimonial cases does not stands to reason. The matrimonial
affairs are usually not disclosed to anybody else for the sake of
relationship. The informant is rustic illiterate lady and she
cannot be expected to tell every minute details with date, day,
time and year of incident of assault and torture meted to her
rather, the whole prosecution story as disclosed by the witnesses
categorically proves the harassment and torture meted to
informant due to non-fulfillment of illegal demand of
motorcycle and colour TV."
13. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by both the
courts below, which have been arrived after scrutinizing the
material on record, there is no scope for reappreciating the
evidences and coming to a different finding in revisional
jurisdiction. This Court further finds that there is no illegality,
perversity or irregularity in the impugned judgements. The
impugned judgements are well reasoned judgement and
accordingly, the judgement of conviction does not call for any
interference by this Court.
On the point of sentence.
Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the petitioner has already served the
sentence for more than five months out of six months and has
faced the rigors of the criminal case right from the year 2006
and more than 14 ½ years have been elapsed from the date of
incident, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of
justice would be served, if the sentence of the petitioner is
modified to the period already undergone in custody and the
fine amount is enhanced from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 5,000/-.
Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is modified and
confined to the period of custody which he has already
undergone in connection with the present case with a fine of Rs.
5,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner within a period of two
months from the date of communication of this order to the
learned trial court. In case, the petitioner does not deposit the
aforesaid fine amount within stipulated timeframe, the bail
bond furnished by the petitioner will be cancelled and he
would serve the remaining sentence as awarded by the learned
court below.
14. If the fine amount is deposited within the period as
stipulated above, the bailors of the petitioners would be
discharged from their liabilities under the bail bond.
15. The fine amount, so deposited, is directed to be remitted
to the informant-victim of the case after due identification.
16. Accordingly, with the aforesaid direction and
modification of sentence, the present revision petition is hereby
disposed of.
17. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are closed.
18. Let the lower court records be immediately sent back to
the court concerned.
19. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned
court below through 'e-mail/FAX'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul/Saurav
