Narayan Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4672 Jhar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    Cr. Revision No. 569 of 2012
     Narayan Singh S/o Late Badhan Singh, Permanent resident of
     Bhaluatand, P.O. & P.S.- Dhanwar, Dist.- Giridih, Jharkhand
     At present R/o Mohalla New Barganda, P.O. & P.S.- Giridih(T),
     Dist.- Giridih.                         ...     ...     Petitioner
                                -Versus-
     1. The State of Jharkhand
     2. Gayatri Devi W/o Late Rami Rai R/o Bhaluatand, P.O. & P.S.
     Dhanwar, Dist-Giridih, Jharkhand ... ...               Opp. Parties
                                 ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

Through: Video Conferencing

Reserved on 13.09.2021 Pronounced on 08.12.2021

1. Heard Mr. Tarun Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2.

3. Heard Ms. Mahua Palit, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.

4. The present criminal revision application is directed against the Judgment dated 08.06.2012 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Giridih in Criminal Appeal No. 58/2011, whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court has dismissed the criminal appeal preferred by the petitioner confirming the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 25.11.2011 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in Complaint Case No. 996/2000, T.R. No. 14/2011.

5. The learned trial court had convicted the petitioner under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days. However, the learned trial

court acquitted the petitioner from the charges under Sections 417 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code.

Submissions on behalf of the petitioner

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned judgments of conviction for the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code are not sustainable in the eyes of law. He submitted that the petitioner, having been acquitted for the offence under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code, could not have been convicted for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel referred to the findings of the learned trial court recorded at Para-15 of the impugned judgment as well as the findings recorded by the learned appellate court to submit that the allegations against the petitioner was that by hook or by crook, the Complainant namely, Gayatri Devi was made to believe by the petitioner and the petitioner got his name entered with Gayatri Devi and purchased the land of Gayatri Devi. He submitted that another lady Gayatri Devi was the wife of the petitioner and the Complainant is different Gayatri Devi. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had purchased the property jointly in his name and in the name of Gayatri Devi-his wife from one Mira Sinha and the Complainant Gayatri Devi is widow of another person namely, Rami Rai. He submitted that as the name of the actual wife of the petitioner was also Gayatri Devi, this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned courts below and accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Learned counsel submitted that considering this aspect of the matter, the conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is not sustainable.

Submissions on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2, on the other hand, opposed the prayer and submitted that if there was another person called Gayatri Devi, who was wife of the petitioner, such person has not been examined before the learned trial court. He submitted that in fact, the petitioner cheated the Complainant-Gayatri Devi by purchasing the property from Mira Sinha by showing Gayatri Devi-the Complainant as his wife. He submitted that considering the entire materials on record, the learned courts below have passed speaking judgments which do not call for any interference.

8. During the course of argument, it was pointed out that Exhibit-A/1 is a sale deed executed by the Complainant in favour of the petitioner and Exhibit-A/5 is a sale deed executed by one Meera Sinha in the name of the petitioner as well as Gayatri Devi who is said to be the wife of the petitioner. Exhibit-A/4 is a rectification deed, wherein the caste of the petitioner declared in Exhibit-A/5 has been rectified by declaring that the purchaser of Exhibit-A/5 i.e. the petitioner is 'Rajput' by caste and it was wrongly recorded in Exhibit-A/5 that his caste is 'Bhumihar, Brahmin' and for this purpose, the rectification deed was executed.

Submissions on behalf of the Opposite Party-State

9. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State also opposed the prayer and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments and accordingly, the same do not call for any interference. She further submitted that merely because the petitioner has been acquitted for the offence under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code, the same has no bearing so far as the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is concerned.

Submissions on behalf of the petitioner by way of rejoinder

10. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the petitioner was aged about 65 years at the time of judgment on 25.11.2011 and he is about 75 years of age at present and in view of the advance age of the petitioner, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner to jail at this stage of the case and accordingly, he prayed for modification of the sentence of the petitioner to some extent.

11. The learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 vehemently opposed the prayer for modification of the sentence and submitted that considering the manner in which the widow has been cheated, the sentence of the petitioner does not call for any modification.

Findings of this Court

12. The case of the Complainant, in brief, is that the Complainant-Gayatri Devi was formerly wife of Late Rami Rai who died in the year 1987, when she was 19-20 years of age. It was further stated that the residence of the present petitioner was situated at that place, where the matrimonial house of the Complainant is situated and the petitioner used to visit her house for showing sympathy to her and in course of time, he developed sexual relationship with her and as a result of which, she became pregnant. It was further alleged that the petitioner got the Complainant aborted against her will. It was further alleged that the petitioner kept the Complainant as his wife in order to deceive her of her money and property which she had got from her first husband. It was alleged that after capturing all the savings as well as the property of the Complainant, the petitioner ousted her from his house on 25.06.2000 after committing marpit with her. In the result, the Complainant filed

a complaint against the petitioner before the learned court below.

13. After finding prima-facie materials against the petitioner, the Court summoned the petitioner and after his appearance, and following due procedure, charges were framed against him for offences under Sections 417, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code which were read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

14. During trial, the Complainant examined altogether five witnesses in support of her case. C.W.-1 is Ram Prasad Rai, C.W.-2 is Jageshwar Ram, C.W.-3 is Gayatri Devi who is the Complainant herself, C.W.-4 is Adhir Prasad Singh and C.W.-5 is Suresh Yadav. Photocopy of two photographs were marked as Exhibits-1 and 1/1 respectively and the Complaint Petition was marked as Exhibit-2 from the side of the prosecution.

15. After closure of the evidence on behalf of the Complainant, the statements of the petitioner were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the incriminating evidences put to him and claimed to be innocent. The petitioner did not adduce any oral evidence, but some documents were filed by him in his defence. Exhibit-A is certified copy of Sale Deed No. 17 dated 08.01.1997, Exhibit- A/1 is certified copy of Sale Deed No. 150 dated 08.01.1997, Exhibit-A/2 is certified copy of Sale Deed No. 806 dated 12.12.2001, Exhibit-A/3 is certified copy of Sale Deed No. 1579 dated 28.08.2003, Exhibit-A/4 is certified copy of deed of rectification dated 10.10.2009, Exhibit-A/5 is certified copy of Sale Deed No. 3625 dated 02.09.2000, Exhibit-B is certified copy of Kabzul Wasuli Rashid dated 15.01.1997 and Exhibit-C to C/1 are the certified copy of photographs.

16. The learned trial court, after scrutinizing the materials on record, found that all the oral witnesses produced by the Complainant supported her case. But on evaluation of the

evidence, the learned trial court recorded that so far as the charge under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the Complainant has executed several sale deeds in the name of several persons which were produced by the defence as documentary evidences and after carefully scrutinizing the same, the learned trial court was of the view that there is nothing to show that fraud was made by the petitioner with the Complainant. All the sale deeds were executed by the Complainant in favour of the respective land purchasers, for which, valid consideration amount was also paid to the complainant and there is nothing on the record to show that there was any fraud from the side of the land purchasers with the Complainant, though it is apparent from the records that there was Civil Suit in connection with alleged sale deeds pending before the competent court. Accordingly, the learned trial court was of the view that if there is civil suit for the alleged sale deeds relating to third parties, then the criminal court cannot decide the genuineness of the same and it is a matter of civil dispute as to whether the said sale deeds are genuine or not and ultimately, the learned trial court held that the Complainant has not been able to prove the charge against the petitioner for offence under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts and acquitted the petitioner for the aforesaid charge under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code.

17. So far as charge under Section 496 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the learned trial court found that though the oral witnesses have supported the case of the complainant on the point of abortion and tubectomy operation without the consent of the Complainant, but the Complainant did not produce any chit of paper regarding the same to prove that any tubectomy operation or abortion was done with the help of the doctor and due to non-production of any medical evidence, the

learned trial court held that the Complainant has not been able to prove the charge under Section 496 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubts and acquitted the petitioner for offence under section 496 IPC.

18. So far as the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the learned trial court after scrutinizing the documentary evidences adduced on behalf of the defence, found that definitely by playing some foul, the petitioner took the Complainant in belief that he will marry her and fraudulently got his name entered in Exhibit- A/5 with the Complainant which was followed by Exhibit-A/4. Ultimately, the learned trial court held that the Complainant has been able to prove the charges for offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the learned trial court held the petitioner guilty for offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

With regards to offence under Section 420 of IPC, the learned trial court at para-15 of its judgment held as under: -

"15. So far charge u/s 420 of the I.P.C. is concerned, from critical analysis of the case record, it appears that by hook and crook it may be to put Gayatri Devito put her in belief by the accused or in other way Narayan Singh, the accused has got entered his name with Gayatri Devi with the purchased land of Gayatri Devi. From perusal of Exbt-A/4 and Exbt-A/5, it is clear that Meera Singh has executed some land in the name of Narayan Singh and Gayatri Devi. In that very sale deed the name of the husband of the complainant Gayatri Devi is entered as Narayan Singh. The name of the caste mentioned as Bhumiyar, Brahaman, and Rajput itself create doubt the intention of accused Narayan Singh. Though the Exbt-A/4 is brought by the defence as the correction in the caste of Narayan Singh and Gayatri Devi as only Rajput but the defence could not made clear this circumstance that why it was mentioned as Bhumiyar, Brahaman and Rajput in Exbt-A/5. It is also proved by the oral evidence that Narayan Singh has taken to put Gayatri Devi in belief that he will marry with her and kept her in his house as his wife and Exbt-A/5 & Exbt-A/4 also made clear that there was something between Narayan Singh and Gayatri Devi by which Gayatri Devi came in the influence of Narayan Singh, the accused and permit him to enter his name

with her in the sale deeds as her husband. It is pertinent to mention here that nothing on the record to show that Gayatri Devi is another lady besides of this Gayatri Devi, the complainant who has mentioned as Gayatri Devi wife of Narayan Singh in the sale deed. So, in my critical analysis I find that definitely by playing some foul, the accused took Gayatri Devi in belief that he will get marry with her and fraudulently got entered his name with Gayatri Devi in Exbt- A/5 followed by Exbt-A/4 and in my opinion, regarding the charge u/s 420 of the I.P.C., the complainant has become able to prove the same against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the accused is liable to be convicted for the aforesaid charge. It is pertinent to mention here that the photographs filed by the parties without formal proving have no value in the eye of law."

19. The learned appellate court also considered the materials on record and recorded concurrent findings at Para-12 of its judgment, which read as under:

"12. From perusal of oral as well as documentary evidence of respective parties, it is crystal clear that complainant, who is widow lady, was fraudulently cheated by the accused on the pretext of marriage. It is also evident that the complainant had fully supported her case in her examination-in-chief as well as she has remained intact during course of her cross-examination. Her evidence also finds corroboration from the evidence of other witnesses examined in this case. I further find that although there are some contradictions in the evidence of witnesses, but no material contradiction or infirmity has been crept in their cross-examination to disbelieve their testimony. There is no valid reason to suspect the credibility of the witnesses examined in this case. As such, I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and order, which is hereby confirmed and this appeal is dismissed."

20. After going through the materials on record, this Court finds that C.W.-3 is the Complainant and, in her evidence, she has stated that after the death of her first husband namely, Rami Rai, the petitioner established physical relation with her by misleading her and when she became pregnant, her tubectomy operation was also done on the pretext of abortion with the help of Dr. Suresh Brahamchari. She further stated that the petitioner promised to keep her with him as his wife and their pair photograph wearing garland was also taken and

when they came closure, then the petitioner, by misleading her, got executed several deeds in his favour with respect to the lands acquired by the Complainant through her first husband. The petitioner also assured her that they would purchase land at Giridih from the same money, but the petitioner entered his own name in the land purchased at Barganda, Giridih and constructed a house on the said land and drove the Complainant out of the said house. The petitioner had also grabbed all the savings of the Complainant by cheating her and left her without any support and she used to wash utensils of people for her livelihood. During her cross-examination, she remained intact and nothing material has come in her evidence to enable the learned courts below to disbelieve or discard her testimony.

21. C.W.-1 Ram Prasad Rai stated that the petitioner had played foul game with the Complainant and had assured her that he will get marry with her and with this assurance, the petitioner entered his name in the property of the Complainant. He further stated that only to put the Complainant to believe the petitioner, the petitioner kept her with him as his wife and after few days, he kicked her out from the house which was purchased in the name of Narayan Singh (petitioner) and Gayatri Devi (complainant). In his cross-examination, he stated that the Complainant has sold her land at Bhalua tand to the petitioner. He further stated that the petitioner has purchased land at Barganda, Giridih in his name as well as in the name of his wife namely, Gayatri Devi and is living there, after constructing house.

22. C.W.-2, Jageshwar Ram deposed that he was told by the Complainant that when she was staying with the petitioner, the petitioner got her land transferred in his name and he had promised that he would solemnize marriage with her and on this assurance, she started living with her at Giridih and the

land purchased by her at Barganda, Giridih is also in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner established physical relation with the Complainant and he lived with her for 10 years. In his cross-examination, he stated that he is fully aware of the rules and regulations of Sadar Hospital and further stated that no operation is done at Sadar Hospital, Giridih without consent of the patient.

23. C.W.-4, Adhir Prasad Singh is a Night Guard at Sadar Hospital, Giridih and he deposed that the house of the petitioner is situated in front of the house of the Complainant at Bhalutand and the petitioner established physical relation with her and she had become pregnant which the petitioner got aborted at Sadar Hospiral, Giridih with help of Dr. Suresh Brahmachari and also got her tubectomy operation. Thereafter, the petitioner got the land of the Complainant sold to other persons which she had obtained from her matrimonial house and he also got two bigha land transferred in his name fraudulently at a considerable amount of Rs. 27,000/-, whereas the land was worth more than rupees one lac at that time. Thereafter, from the money of the Complainant, the petitioner purchased land at Bargand in his own name as her husband and when the house was being constructed, the Complainant obtained loan from bank, post office and Sahara India and also sold her jewellery worth Rs.1,00,000/- and both started living in the house, but on 25.06.2000, the petitioner drove out the Complainant from the said house. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he was not present at the time of Kewala of the land of Gayatri Devi sold to the petitioner. He stated that Meera Sinha sold the land to Narayan Singh in which he is a witness. He also admitted that he was not present at the time of operation of the Complainant. C.W.-5 Suresh Yadav is an Advocate's Clerk and a formal witness who exhibited the Complaint Petition as Exhibit-2.

24. This Court finds that there is consistent evidence on record and concurrent findings that the petitioner, on the false promise of marriage with the Complainant, fraudulently got his name entered with the Complainant in Exhibit-A/5 and the land was purchased from the money of the Complainant and both lived together as husband and wife in the house constructed over the land at Barganda, Giridih which was purchased jointly in the name of the petitioner and the Complainant, but thereafter, the petitioner drove her out from the house and accordingly, the petitioner misappropriated the money and property of the Complainant and these facts have been fully supported by C.W.-3, the Complainant in her evidence. This Court further finds that C.W.-1, C.W.-2 and C.W-4 have also fully supported and corroborated the case of the Complainant.

25. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that Gayatri Devi with whom he jointly purchased the property was his wife and the complainant of the present case is a different Gayatri Devi. The said argument is not based on any material on record and is accordingly rejected. The petitioner did not lead any evidence to substantiate such a plea and did not even examine his so-called wife-Gayatri Devi. The argument that another lady named Gayatri Devi was his wife and the complainant was different Gayatri Devi has been rejected by the learned trial court also by holding that there is nothing on the record to show that Gayatri Devi is another lady besides of this Gayatri Devi, the complainant, who has mentioned as Gayatri Devi wife of Narayan Singh in the sale deed.

26. So far as acquittal of the petitioner for offence under Section 417 is concerned, this Court finds that the learned trial court had acquitted the petitioner for offence under Section 417 of IPC by considering the various other sale deeds executed by

the complainant in the name of other persons as the sale deeds were subject-matter of civil suit pending before the competent court and there was nothing on record to show any fraud with regards to such sale deeds. This Court is of the view that the acquittal of the petitioner for offence under Section 417 of IPC has no bearing on his conviction under Section 420 of IPC. The reason for conviction under Section 420 of IPC was in connection with another sale-deed, where the petitioner got his name entered with the complainant, stating the complainant was the wife of the petitioner (Ext.-A/5) although the complainant was not his wife and the learned trial court recorded that there was nothing on record to show that there was another Gayatri Devi besides the complainant-Gayatri Devi whose name was mentioned as Gayatri Devi wife of the complainant. This Court finds that the basic ingredients for offence under Section 420 were fully satisfied in the present case and accordingly, the conviction under Section 420 of IPC of that of the petitioner does not call for any interference.

27. This Court finds that the learned courts below have scrutinized all the evidences on record and have recorded concurrent findings for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The judgments passed by the learned courts below are well-reasoned judgments and there is no perversity or illegality in the judgments. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgments of conviction passed by the learned courts below under revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction of the petitioner under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned trial court and confirmed by the learned appellate court is upheld.

28. Considering the fact that the petitioner has faced the criminal case for a long time right from the year 2000 and that his present age is about 75 years and also the fact that the complainant has suffered due to acts and omissions of the

petitioner and was left without any support as stated by her in her evidence, this Court is of the considered view that ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to three months with enhancement of fine to Rs. 1,00,000/- and the entire fine amount is remitted to the complainant of the case upon identification. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is modified and is reduced to a period of three months with fine amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner before the learned court below within a period of three months from the date of communication of a copy of this judgment.

29. On account of non-deposit of the aforesaid fine amount, the petitioner would serve the sentence already imposed by the learned court below. If the fine amount is so deposited, the same is directed to be remitted to the complainant of the case upon due identification.

30. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

31. Bail bond furnished by the petitioner is cancelled.

32. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed.

33. Let the lower court records be immediately sent back to the court concerned.

34. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through "email/FAX".

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul/-