Jharkhand High Court
Munna Ansari @ Md. Munna Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 April, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 298 of 2012
----------
Munna Ansari @ Md. Munna Ansari ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---------
For the Petitioner : Ms. Rakhi Sharma, Amicus Curiae
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Advocate
----------
C.A.V On: - 22/03/2021 Pronounced On: -12/04/2021
Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.:-
1. Heard Ms. Rakhi Sharma, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on
behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.
2. The present revision application is directed against the Judgment
dated 30th January, 2012 passed by the learned Principal Sessions
Judge, Giridih in Cr. Appeal No. 33 of 2011, whereby, the learned
Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner, so
far as his conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is
concerned. However, the learned Lower Appellate Court has acquitted
the petitioner for offence under Sections 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961.
3. The learned Trial Court had convicted and sentenced the petitioner vide
Judgment dated 20.7.2011 for the offence under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) for simple
imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs.500/- and also
for offence under section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act for simple
imprisonment of six months. The Trial Court's Judgment was passed
by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Giridih.
Arguments for the Petitioner.
4. Learned amicus curiae appearing on behalf of the petitioner (husband
of the informant) has submitted that most of the witnesses are the
relative of the lady and accordingly, the learned court below has not
scrutinized the evidences of the prosecution witnesses properly. She
also submits that P.W.-5 is a doctor who has stated that there was no
external injury found in her body and she only complained of body
pain. She has submitted that although there is allegation of harassment,
but the demand of dowry has not been proved before the learned court
below. She submits that as the demand of dowry was not proved,
therefore, the learned appellate court had acquitted the petitioner for
alleged offence under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and
since the petitioner was acquitted for offence under Section 3/4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, therefore, the offence under Section 498A of
the Indian Penal Code is also not made out. She has further submitted
that there is no specific date of incident mentioned in the evidence and
the victim has stated that she was tried to be burnt pouring kerosene
and the neighbor had saved her, but none of the neighbor has come
forward for the prosecution evidence.
5. The learned amicus curiae has relied upon the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs.
Union of India and Others reported in (2005) 6 SCC 281 para-19 to
submit that there has been abuse in making allegations under Section
498A of I.P.C. regarding which judicial notice has been taken by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court as well. She has also relied upon judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Wasim Vs. State
(NCT of Delhi) of reported in (2019) 7 SCC 435 para-12 to submit that
the basic ingredients for offence under Section 498A of I.P.C. has not
been satisfied in the present case.
6. The learned amicus has further submitted that the entire allegation was
levelled by the informant of the case, as she was the Para Teacher and
she wanted the petitioner to live with her at her working place and she
was never interested in going to her in-laws' house and continue the
matrimonial relationship. She submits that the petitioner has been
falsely implicated in this case and the impugned judgment of
conviction and sentence is perverse and is fit to be set-aside.
7. During the course of hearing, it transpired from the records that the
petitioner had surrendered before the learned court below during the
pendency of this case on 30.10.2012 and was released on bail on
02.11.2012.
Arguments of the opposite party-State
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State
while opposing the prayer has submitted that in the case of concurrent
findings of fact, there is no scope for re-appreciation of evidences on
record and the victim and other witnesses have fully supported the
prosecution case, who have been fully cross-examined by the defence
and the learned court below had appreciated the evidences on record.
So far as the acquittal of the petitioner for offence under Section 3/4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is concerned, he submits that the
acquittal was done by the learned appellate court on the technical
ground that the sanction for prosecution was not available and therefore
the conviction under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
could not be sustained, although the basic ingredients for the offence
was present. He submits that in the case records, the basic ingredients
for offence under Section 498A of IPC is made out and the present
criminal revision application is fit to be dismissed.
9. During the course of hearing, the learned amicus appearing on behalf
of the petitioner has also indicated that in case, this Court is not
inclined to set-aside the conviction and sentence, then the sentence of
the petitioner be modified to some extent, as the incident is of the year
2004 and more than 16 years have elapsed.
10. To this submission, the learned counsel for the opposite party-State
has submitted that if in case, any sentence is modified, then under such
circumstances, some heavy fine amount be imposed to the petitioner
and sentence may not be less than three months.
Findings of this Court.
11. As per the prosecution case, the informant is the wife of the
petitioner married on 07.06.2001. It has been stated that at the time of
marriage, the petitioner was given cash, ornaments, a motorcycle and
several other articles. It is alleged that at the time of settlement of
marriage, the accused persons had again demanded an amount of
Rs.50,000/- as cash, which could not be fulfilled by the father of the
informant. The informant went to her matrimonial home, then again,
the said demand of cash was started from 18.10.2001 and she was
treated with cruelty both mentally and physically. When she informed
her father, then Rs.25,000/- was given to the petitioner, who purchased
a tractor but the behavior of the petitioner and her in-laws did not
change and again on 15.10.2003, a written complaint was given by the
informant to the Superintendent of Police. Thereafter again,
conciliation took place at Dhanwar police station and the informant
started living with her husband. Meanwhile, a child was also born. It
has been further alleged that on 03.03.2004, all the accused persons
conspired altogether to burn the informant, caught hold of her and her
husband started pressing her neck. She was also assaulted by leg and
fists and her husband pressed her chest forcefully, then she became
unconscious. Thereafter, her husband sprinkled kerosene oil on her
body and other accused persons caught hold of her and when she raised
alarm, the neighbor assembled there and saved her life. It has also been
alleged that the accused snatched ornaments worth Rs.25,000/- and had
driven the informant away from her matrimonial home. Anyhow, she
returned back to her parent's home and got herself treated by Dr. Anil
Kumar. She filed an application with injury report before the
Superintendent of Police, Giridih on 06.03.2004. On 18.03.2004, the
informant's husband came to her parents' place and threatened to kill
her. Accordingly, the complaint was filed, which was sent to the
concerned police station for investigation under Section 156 (iii)
Cr.P.C.
12. On the basis of the information given by the informant, a case was
registered as (Dhanwar) P.S Case No. 123 of 2004 dated 24.7.2004 and
the charge-sheet was submitted under Section 498A/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Altogether
there were four accused and thereafter in the same case, the charge-
sheet was further submitted against three more persons and both the
charge-sheet were merged and trial commenced against altogether
seven accused persons, including the petitioner. However, accused
Suleman Ansari absconded and his case was split up from others and
remaining six accused faced the trial. During the course of trial,
altogether seven witnesses were examined. After closure of the
prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused persons were
recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C and the accused persons
claimed themselves to be innocent. The defence also examined one
defence witness as D.W.1.
13. P.W.6 is the informant herself. She has fully supported the
prosecution case in her examination in chief and stated that she got
married with the accused Munna Anasari in the year 2001 and has got a
child from their wedlock, but after some time her husband and the
other members of his family started demanding Rs.50,000/- as dowry
and when she denied then they used to assault her. She has further
stated that her father gave Rs.25,000/- under compulsion to her
husband for the purchase of a tractor but accused were not satisfied
with the same and again demanded Rs.50,000/- and when her father
expressed his inability to fulfill the said demand, the accused persons
tortured and assaulted her and later on, tried to burn her by sprinkling
Kerosene Oil. Ultimately, the accused drove her out with her child
from her matrimonial house and she came back to her parents' house.
She was thoroughly cross-examined and there was no material
contradiction. However, she admitted that her husband helped her
during the course of her treatment when she fell ill. She also alleged
that during her stay in matrimonial house, her husband tortured her for
non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.
14. P.W.2 is the brother of the informant who has fully supported the
prosecution case and has stated that there was a demand of Rs.50,000/-
as dowry and the accused persons tortured the informant. He has also
stated that in compulsion, his father had given a sum of Rs.25,000/- to
the petitioner-husband for taking a tractor and after some time,
petitioner again demanded a cash of Rs.50,000/- as dowry which was
not fulfilled by his father. As a result of non-fulfillment of the demand
of dowry, the accused persons started abusing and assaulting the
complainant-informant and lastly, due to their torture, the informant
left her in-laws' place and returned back to her parents' place. This
witness was thoroughly cross-examined by the defence and he had
stated during his cross-examination that no assault had taken place in
his presence. He has also stated that the informant is a Para Teacher
and wanted to stay with her husband, but her husband was not ready to
live with her at the place of her service.
15. P.W.3 is the father of the informant, who has also fully supported
the prosecution case and his evidence is in line with the evidence of
P.W.2 and P.W-6 which is apparent from the recording of the evidence
by the learned court below. He has also stated that during the course of
committing torture upon the informant, the accused persons tried to
burn the informant by sprinkling kerosene oil but they did not succeed
and she was rescued with the help of her neighbor. This witness was
also thoroughly cross-examined by the defence and as per the learned
Trial Court, there were no contradictions in the evidence of P.W.3. The
learned Trial Court also recorded that P.W.4 had also supported the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses without any contradictions and
was also cross-examined.
16. P.W.5 is the Doctor, who had proved the injury report, marked as
Exhibit-1 and has stated that at the time of examination of the
informant, she complained of pain which she sustained during the
course of assault made by the accused persons.
17. P.W.7 is the Investigating Officer of the case, who has submitted
the charge-sheet in this case and has also supported the prosecution
case. He has stated that all the prosecution witnesses had supported the
prosecution case in the statements made before him. He has proved the
formal FIR as Exhibit-2.
18. The petitioner was examined as a witness by the defence who
stated that the petitioner was ready to keep his wife with him but his
wife does not want to live with him. He has also stated that his wife is a
Para Teacher and wants to live separately. Though the petitioner tried
to reside with his wife but she is not willing to stay with him. He has
denied the allegations, made by the prosecution.
19. The learned trial court recorded that the examined witnesses have
not specified the name of other accused persons except the name of the
petitioner-husband in the involvement of commission of torture or
assault made to the victim/informant for demand of Rs.50,000/- as
dowry and held the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 498 A of
IPC as well as for offence under Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act
and acquitted rest of the accused who faced the trial by giving them
benefit of doubt. The learned trial court sentenced the petitioner for
simple imprisonment for each of the offences with fine of Rs.500/- for
offence under Section 498A of IPC.
20. The learned Appellate Court also scrutinized all the evidences on
record and also considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the
parties and recorded the finding that it appeared that all the prosecution
witnesses have proved about the demand of dowry of Rs.50,000/- and
the informant was tortured by the petitioner-husband. It further
appeared that the petitioner had not only assaulted her, but also
attempted to set her ablaze. The learned Lower Appellate Court found
that the prosecution has fully established the charges under Section
498A IPC against the petitioner-husband.
So far as the conviction under Section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act is concerned, the learned Lower Appellate Court acquitted the
petitioner on the technical ground on account of absence of sanction for
prosecution under the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act. Since this
finding of the learned appellate court is not under challenge, this Court
is not deliberating any further on the legality or otherwise of the same.
21. It has been argued that the petitioner having been acquitted for
offence under Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, his
conviction under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code cannot be
sustained. The aforesaid argument of the learned amicus is devoid of
any merit in view of the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted for
offence under Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 by the
learned appellate court on the point of technical ground of absence of
sanction for prosecution under the said Act. So far as the ingredients of
the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code read with
explanation (b) thereof is concerned, this Court finds that there are
consistent findings recorded by the learned courts below regarding
harassment of the informant-wife at the hand of the present petitioner
with the view to coercing her/her father, to meet unlawful demand of
money and such harassment was on account of failure by her/her father
to meet such demand. All the prosecution witnesses have supported the
demand of Rs.50,000/- by the petitioner. In such circumstances, this
Court is of the considered view that the basic ingredients of offence
under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code was fully satisfied and the
learned courts below have given consistent findings and have rightly
convicted the petitioner.
22. The learned Amicus has also referred to certain contradictions in
the evidences on record by stating that it was the informant herself,
who wanted to stay separately with her husband and not with her in-
laws. During her cross examination, she had stated that in the course of
her treatment, her husband had helped her. So far as the assault upon
the informant is concerned, the learned Amicus has referred to the
evidence of P.W. 2, who in his cross-examination had stated that no
assault had taken place in his presence and had also stated that the
informant is a para-teacher and she wants to live with her husband, but
the petitioner is not ready to live with her at the place of her service.
The learned Amicus has submitted that the Doctor did not find any
external injury on the body of the informant. The learned Amicus has
also submitted that no independent witness or any neighbor has been
examined.
23. This Court is of the view that the learned courts below have duly
scrutinized the evidences on record and the informant, who is the
victim of the case, has fully supported the prosecution case and was
thoroughly cross-examined. The other material witnesses also
supported the prosecution case and were also thoroughly cross-
examined. Merely because there is no independent witness, the same
by itself does not make the impugned judgments illegal, irregular or
perverse particularly when the prosecution witnesses have fully
supported the prosecution case and the defence has duly cross-
examined the prosecution witness and there was no material
contradiction/inconsistency in their evidences. So far as the
appreciation of evidence of the doctor (P.W-5) is concerned, merely
because there was no external injury found on the body of the
informant when she was examined by the doctor, the same does not
create any doubt in the prosecution case as the doctor had proved the
injury report as Exhibit -1 and stated that at the time of examination,
the informant complained of pain which she sustained during the
course of assault made by the accused persons. Further, this Court also
finds that the informant was examined by the doctor after she had
returned from her matrimonial house to her parents' house.
24. This Court finds that the learned Amicus has not been able to
demonstrate any illegality or irregularity or perversity in the impugned
judgments and there is no scope for reappreciation of the evidences on
record to come to a different finding.
25. So far as the judgment relied upon by the learned Amicus Curiae
passed in the case of Wasim v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2019)
7 SCC 435 is concerned, it has been held in para 12 of the said
judgment that conviction under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code is
for subjecting the women to cruelty. It has been held in para 12 as
follows:
"12. Conviction under Section 498-A IPC is for subjecting a
woman to cruelty. Cruelty is explained as any wilful conduct
which is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause
grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. Harassment of a
woman by unlawful demand of dowry also partakes the character of
"cruelty". It is clear from a plain reading of Section 498-A that
conviction for an offence under Section 498-A IPC can be for wilful
conduct which is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide OR for
dowry demand. Having held that there is no evidence of dowry
demand, the trial court convicted the appellant under Section 498-
A IPC for his wilful conduct which drove the deceased to commit
suicide. The appellant was also convicted under Section 306 IPC as
the trial court found him to have abetted the suicide by the
deceased."
In the said judgement, the learned trial court had convicted the
appellant under Sections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code and the
High Court had acquitted the appellant for offence under Section 306
of Indian Penal Code and upheld the conviction under Section 498A of
Indian Penal Code. In the said judgment before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, on the one hand, the High Court had recorded a finding that
neither mental nor physical cruelty was proved and, on the other hand,
convicted the appellant under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code by
holding that the prosecution proved dowry demand by the appellant
immediately after the marriage. It was observed that this finding was
recorded by the High Court without detailed discussion of evidences on
record especially when the trial court found that there was no material
on record to show that there was any demand of dowry and the High
Court did not refer to such findings of the learned trial court and record
reasons for its disapproval.
The said judgment does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this
case as the basic ingredient for offence under Section 498A IPC, read
with explanation (b) thereof, are proved and concurrent findings on the
point have been given in the impugned judgments passed by the
learned courts below.
26. This Court finds that the learned courts below in their concurrent
findings, found that demand of dowry of Rs.50,000/- was made by the
petitioner and there was torture of the informant on account of non-
fulfillment of the demand from her parents' side. This Court is of the
considered view that merely because the petitioner has been acquitted
for the offence under Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on
technical ground of absence of sanction for prosecution, the same does
not create any impact or doubt on the aforesaid concurrent findings
leading to conviction of the petitioner under Section 498 A of IPC.
This Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality or
perversity in the impugned judgements calling for any interference in
revisional jurisdiction, so far as the conviction of the petitioner under
Section 498 A IPC is concerned.
27. This Court also finds that so far as the sentence of the petitioner is
concerned, the petitioner has faced the criminal case since the year
2004 and more than 16 years has elapsed, and accordingly ends of
justice would be served by modification of the sentence to some extent.
Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is modified by reducing the
sentence of imprisonment to three months and enhancing the fine
amount to Rs.50,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner before the
learned court below within a period of two months from the date of
communication of this order. The amount so deposited is directed to be
remitted to the victim girl after due identification. In case of non-
deposit of the fine amount within the aforesaid time frame, the bail
bond furnished by the petitioner will be immediately cancelled and the
petitioner would serve the sentence already imposed by the learned
courts below for offence under Section 498 A of IPC.
28. This criminal revision application is disposed of with aforesaid
modification of sentence.
29. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are closed.
30. This Court observes that vide order dated 08.03.2021, Ms. Rakhi
Sharma, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae in this case by this
Court. This Court records its appreciation for the valuable assistance
accorded by the learned Amicus Curiae in final disposal of this case.
The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee is
directed to ensure that the legal remuneration of the learned Amicus
Curiae is duly paid to her within a period of 4 weeks upon submission
of bills by her.
31. Office is directed to provide a copy of this order to Ms. Rakhi
Sharma, the learned Amicus Curiae and also to the Secretary,
Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee
32. Let the lower court records be sent back to the court concerned.
33. Let this order be immediately communicated to the learned court
below through FAX/e-mail.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Bhaskar/Saurav
