Jharkhand High Court
Durga Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 955 of 2012
Durga Prasad, son of late Kishun Chandra Pandit
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pandey Niraj Rai, Advocate
: Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Akchansh Kishore, Advocate
For the Opp.Party State: Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
10/09.04.2021 Heard Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha
and Mr. Akchansh Kishore, Advocates.
2. Heard Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the opposite party - State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
impugned judgment of conviction of the petitioner, being the
husband of the informant, is ex facie perverse and cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law. Learned counsel has submitted
that the learned lower appellate court vide para 31 read with
para 13 and 35 of the impugned appellate court's judgment has
held that neither the demand of dowry was proved nor the
accused could be convicted under Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961.
4. He has further submitted that so far as the petitioner is
concerned, he has been convicted under Section 498A of Indian
Penal Code by recording specific finding at para 32 of the
impugned appellate court judgment. He has also submitted that
the learned lower appellate court has recorded that the
prosecution has been able to prove the allegation of subjecting
the informant to cruelty by the husband and such allegation
was supported by the informant P.W.7 read with the evidence
of P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6, who have deposed supporting the
evidences of one another that husband used to assault the
informant. Learned counsel has further submitted that as the
demand of property was not proved, the cruelty has to be seen
in the light of explanation (a) of Section 498A of Indian Penal
Code. He has also submitted that all assault may not come
within the meaning of 'cruelty' under explanation (a) of Section
498 A of Indian Penal Code, but the same is required to be of
such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide
or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical) of the woman and for that
purpose also, evidence was required to be led.
5. Learned counsel has submitted that the learned lower
appellate court vide para 32 has convicted the petitioner under
Section 498A of Indian Penal Code by holding that the
petitioner has not managed to keep and maintain his wife
properly and has not taken any step since long for treatment of
her mental ailment and such omission and commission alleged
and proved against the petitioner are sufficient for a deserted
wife to commit any act dangerous to her life. He submits that
there is no allegation on record that the wife was subjected any
cruelty of the nature contemplated under explanation (a) of
Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. He further submits that the
finding of the learned lower appellate court that since long the
petitioner has not taken any steps for the treatment of his wife
is also contrary to the impugned judgement of the learned
lower appellate , para 21 wherein, the deposition of the
informant has been recorded where she clearly deposed that
her treatment took place continuously for 15 to 16 days in the
private mental hospital, Ranchi and during her treatment, her
father and her husband, both were with her. He also submits
that it has also come in evidence that at the time of marriage
itself, the mental condition of the informant was not proper.
Learned counsel has also submitted that not only there is total
absence of evidence on record to bring home the basic
ingredients of 'cruelty' as contemplated under explanation (a)
of Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, but the prosecution had
filed such evidences which were discarded by the learned lower
appellate court by citing reasons. He submits that the learned
lower appellate court has recorded finding in connection with
such prosecution evidences which were brough before the
learned court below by way of afterthought and the learned
appellate court rejected those evidences by speaking order.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that
considering the other findings recorded by the learned lower
appellate court, the present case is a fit case where the learned
lower appellate court should have granted benefit of doubt to
the petitioner as the veracity of the prosecution evidence and
the manner in which it was produced before the learned trial
court itself created a doubt in the prosecution case.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon
the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of
Code of Criminal Procedure to submit that only vague
questions were put by the learned trial court and the
circumstances, which have been relied upon by the learned
appellate court in para 32 of the impugned judgment, were not
specifically put to the petitioner by the learned trial court while
recording statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, and
accordingly, the same could not have been a basis for
upholding the conviction under Section 498A of Indian Penal
Code. Such approach of the learned court below has caused
prejudice to the petitioner.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the
other hand, has submitted that both the learned courts below
have convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 498A of
Indian Penal Code and accordingly, no interference is called for
in the present case. However, he does not dispute the fact that
the learned trial court had convicted all the accused, not only
under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, but also under
Section 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, but the learned
lower appellate court has not convicted the petitioner on
account of demand of any property/dowry , but on account of
assault to the informant and by stating that the act of the
petitioner was sufficient for the wife to commit any act
dangerous to her life. He also does not dispute the fact that all
the accused persons were acquitted for offence under Section 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and all other accused
persons were also acquitted under Section 498A of Indian Penal
Code and the conviction of the petitioner was sustained only
under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. He also does not
dispute the fact that as per the appellate court's judgment, the
petitioner was present at the time of treatment of his wife in the
mental hospital and also the fact that even at the time of
marriage, the mental condition of the wife was not found
proper. He also does not dispute the fact that certain evidences
which were produced from the side of the prosecution
including some documentary evidences were discarded by the
learned lower appellate court after full discussion with an
observation that those evidences were manipulated and
produced by way of after though and there were sufficient
improvement and supplements made in the allegations which
were not even reflecting in the initial allegation made by the
informant of the case.
9. Arguments concluded.
10. Judgment reserved.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/
