Jharkhand High Court
Ranjeet Karmali vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 595 of 2014
Ranjeet Karmali S/o Baleshwar Karmali ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Kanti Devi W/o Rohit Vishwakarma @ Dilip Karmali
D/o Madan Vishwakarma ... Opp. Parties
With
Cr. Revision No. 155 of 2014
1. Rohit Vishwakarma @ Dilip Karmali @ Dilip
S/o Baleshwar Karmali
2. Baleshwar Karmali @ Vishwakarma
S/o Late Ram Lal Karmali
3. Lacho Devi W/o Baleshwar Karmali
(Deleted vide order dated 04.01.2016) ... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Kanti Devi W/o Rohit Vishwakarma @ Dilip Karmali
D/o Madan Vishwakarma ... Opp. Parties
With
Cr. Revision No. 698 of 2015
Lalita Devi W/o Ranjit Karmali ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Kanti Devi W/o Rohit Vishwakarma @ Dilip Karmali
D/o Madan Vishwakarma ... Opp. Parties
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate
For O.P. No.1-State : Ms. Priya Shrestha, A.P.P.
For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
10/19.01.2021
1. Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners in all the cases.
2. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, the learned counsel
appearing for the Opposite Party No.2 in all the cases.
3. Heard Ms. Priya Shrestha, the learned A.P.P. appearing
for the Opposite Party No.1-State in all the cases.
4. All these three criminal revision petitions are directed
against the Judgment dated 13.12.2013 passed by the learned 8th
District & Addl. Sessions Judge, Hazaribag in Criminal Appeal
No. 37/2011 whereby and whereunder the Judgment of
conviction and the order of sentence of the petitioners under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned
trial court was upheld and the criminal appeal was dismissed.
5. The criminal appeal was preferred against the Judgment
of conviction and the order of sentence dated 15.02.2011 passed
by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag in
Complaint Case No. 1722 of 2007 / T.R. No. 213 of 2011
whereby and whereunder the petitioners alongwith Pramila
Devi were held guilty and were convicted for the offence
committed under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and
were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a
period of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for the
offence committed under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code
and in default of payment of fine, they were directed to
undergo further Simple Imprisonment for 03 months. The
period of detention undergone by the petitioners during trial
was directed to be set off against the term of imprisonment
imposed.
Arguments on behalf of the Petitioners
6. Learned counsels for the petitioners and the Opposite
Party No.2 submitted that the petitioners and the Opposite
Party No.2 have filed joint compromise petitions in all the three
cases and as per the joint compromise petitions, the Opposite
Party No.2 has no objection, if the conviction as well as the
sentence of the petitioners is set-aside.
7. The learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State
submitted that concurrent findings of facts have been recorded
by the learned courts below and merely because the petitioners
and the Opposite Party No.2 have compromised the case, the
same by itself may not be a ground to set-aside the order of
conviction. However, she submitted that so far as the sentence
is concerned, the same can be modified appropriately.
8. At this, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that the petitioner in Criminal Revision
No. 595 of 2014 has already remained in custody for a period
from 15.05.2014 to 09.08.2014 and the petitioners in Criminal
Revision No. 155 of 2014 have already remained in custody for
10 months and the petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 698 of 2015 has
already remained in custody for about one and half months. He
further submitted that the petitioners and the Opposite Party
No.2 have decided to separate peacefully and therefore,
appropriate order may be passed by limiting the sentences to
the period of custody already undergone by the petitioners.
9. The learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 has no
objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioners on the point of sentences of the
petitioners.
Findings of this Court
10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
going through the impugned judgments and the lower court
records of the case, this Court finds that the prosecution case is
based on a Complaint Petition being Complaint Case No. 1722
of 2007 presented on 22.11.2007 by the Complainant namely,
Kanti Devi against the petitioners and four others alleging
inter-alia that the Complainant was married with Rohit
Vishwakarma on 27.06.2004 and at the time of marriage, her
parents had given Rs. 81,000/- cash, golden ornaments and
household articles and she went to her matrimonial house
where after some days, the accused persons tortured her for
additional dowry. On 27.03.2007, the accused persons tried to
set her on fire in her room, but due to timely arrival of
neighbours, she was rescued. The accused persons used to
demand additional dowry of Rs. 50,000/-, one motorcycle and
other household articles from the Complainant. The
Complainant informed her parents regarding such demand and
on 26.03.2007, her brother came and gave Rs. 37,000/- and some
articles, but inspite of that the accused persons did not stop
their torture and again demanded Rs. 50,000/- which was also
paid by her brother in January. On 19.11.2007, the Complainant
was badly assaulted by the accused persons, due to which she
became unconscious and when she regained her sense, she
found herself in the house of her cousin brother Sukar Karmali.
Thereafter, the Complainant was treated by doctor and she
went to her parental house.
11. The learned C.J.M., Hazaribag transferred the case to the
court of Sri S.K. Singh, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Hazaribag for inquiry and disposal. The learned Judicial
Magistrate examined the Complainant on solemn affirmation
under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and also examined three enquiry
witnesses under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. and vide order dated
04.01.2008, found a prima facie case under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and Pramila Devi and
thereafter, summons were issued to them. After appearance of
the accused persons, the evidence before charge of 03 witnesses
namely, Kanti Devi (C.W.-1), Hira Lal Karmali (C.W.-2) and
Leko Karmali @ Teko Chand Karmali (C.W.-3) was recorded.
12. On 17.08.2009, the charge under Sections Section 498(A)
of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the petitioners
and Pramila Devi which were read over and explained to them
in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
13. In course of trial, the Complainant examined altogether
06 witnesses in support of her case. The evidence of C.W.-1
(Kanti Devi) was expunged vide order dated 14.01.2011 as she
was again examined as C.W.-4 and was also cross-examined.
C.W.-2 is Hira Lal Karmali who is the brother of the
Complainant, C.W.-3 is Leko Karmali @ Teko Chand Karmali
who is cousin brother of the Complainant, C.W.-4 is Kanti Devi
who is the Complainant herself, C.W.-5 is Sukar Karmali who is
another cousin brother of the Complainant and is a neighbour
of her in-laws and C.W.-6 is Lakhan Kumar @ Lakhan Karmali
who is a relative of the Complainant. The Complainant has
exhibited the Complaint Petition as Exhibit-1.
14. On 29.04.2010, the statements of the petitioners were
recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein the petitioners
simply denied the incriminating substances put to them and
claimed to be innocent. The accused persons examined two
witnesses in their defence. D.W.-1 is Dinesh Rajak and D.W.-2 is
Subhash Ghosh.
15. This Court finds that the learned trial court considered
the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties and also
considered the arguments advanced on their behalf and
recorded its findings in Para-17, 18 and 19 which read as under:
"17. In order to test the submission of learned counsel
appearing for the defence, I have minutely gone through the oral
and documentary evidences (i.e. complaint petition) adduced on
behalf of the prosecution/complainant. All the CWs have fully
supported the case of the complainant and have specifically
stated in their evidence that accused persons have tortured
complainant and ill-treated for non-fulfillment of additional
demand of dowry.
18. On perusal of the case record, it also transpires that
factum of marriage is not challenged in this case.
19. Thus, from the discussions made above and on careful
perusal of entire admissible evidences available at this record, I
am of the view that factum of marriage of the complainant with
accused Rohit Vishwakarma has been established. Further, it
has been established that accused persons being husband and
relative of the husband of complainant subjected complainant to
cruelty because of non-fulfillment of additional demand of
dowry. There is ample evidence on record to show that after
marriage of the complainant, she was subjected to ill-treatment
and tortured due to non-fulfillment of the demand of additional
dowry made by the accused persons."
16. This Court further finds that the learned appellate court
also considered the evidences adduced on behalf of the
Complainant as well as the defence and the arguments
advanced on behalf of the parties and recorded its findings in
Para-8 and 9 which read as under:
"8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after
thorough scrutinizing the oral and documentary evidences of
both the parties, it appears that it is the case of complainant/
respondent that she was married with Rohit Vishwakarma and
after marriage, she was tortured by her in-laws for dowry and
ultimately, she was ousted from her in-laws house. CW-4 the
complainant has categorically deposed regarding the occurrence
committed with her and also other complainant witnesses
supported the case of complainant in their evidences. Also on
behalf of defence, it has been contended that they have been
falsely implicated in this case and the complainant has falsely
filed this case and two defence witnesses have been adduced on
their behalf, but both the DW-1 and DW-2 have stated in their
depositions that they have no concerned with the family affairs
of accused persons. Moreover, DW-1 has admitted at para-3 of
his evidence that there is a dispute exists between Kanti Devi
and her in-laws. While the complainant witnesses have fully
supported the case of complainant and they have specifically
stated in their evidence that the accused persons had tortured
the complainant for non-fulfillment of demand of additional
dowry. Though there are some minor contradictions in the
evidences of complainant witnesses have been pointed out by
the learned counsel for appellant, but these are natural and also
it is settled preposition of law that minor discrepancies could
not be termed as contradictions. Furthermore, there is no reason
to disbelieve the evidences of complainant witnesses, as because
there is nothing to show or had any reason for making a false
statement against the accused persons.
9. Taking into consideration the above facts and
circumstances of the case and on the basis of oral evidences
adduced on behalf of both the parties, it appears that the
complainant and her witnesses categorically deposed in their
evidences regarding the occurrence and the complainant proved
her case by cogent and conclusive proof."
17. This Court finds that C.W.-4 is the Complainant herself.
She deposed that she was married with Rohit Vishwakarma in
2004 at Rajrappa Temple according to Hindu rites and at the
time of marriage, her parents had given Rs. 81,000/- to her in-
laws and after the marriage, she went to her matrimonial house
where after some days, her in-laws tortured her and demanded
Rs.50,000/- and motorcycle. She further deposed that her father
after taking loan gave Rs.37,000/- and motorcycle, but inspite of
that, they did not keep her properly and her mother-in-law and
gotni, after mar-pit, confined her in a room and her husband,
dewar and father-in-law set fire in that room and on her noise,
the accused persons closed the door from outside. However, on
hearing noise, neighbours came and opened the door. On
getting message, her parents came and, in their presence, the
accused persons accepted their guilt and promised that they
would keep her properly in future. But again after some days,
the accused persons committed mar-pit with her and
demanded Rs. 50,000/-. In cross-examination, she admitted that
her husband is doing the work of contractor and her mother-in-
law is in service and her in-laws family is a joint family in
which widow of brother and the younger brother of her
husband jointly reside with the family. She further admitted
that she is unable to say the date of occurrence and stated that
the accused persons neglected her.
18. This Court further finds that the Complainant (C.W.-4)
has fully supported her version of the occurrence stated in her
Complaint Petition and C.W.-2, C.W.-3, C.W.-5 and C.W.-6 have
fully corroborated the evidence of the Complainant. C.W.-2,
C.W.-3 and C.W.4 have fully supported the incidents of torture
and ill-treatment committed to the Complainant by the
petitioners due to non-fulfillment of the demand of additional
dowry of Rs.50,000/- and motorcycle.
19. This Court finds that both the learned courts below have
carefully scrutinized the evidences of the witnesses adduced on
behalf of the Complainant and have recorded concurrent
findings of facts and have found sufficient evidence on record
for conviction of the petitioners under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code.
20. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the
conviction of the petitioners calling for any interference under
revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the conviction of the
petitioners under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code passed
by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate
court is hereby affirmed.
21. This Court further finds that during pendency of these
criminal revision petitions, the petitioners and the Opposite
Party No.2-Complainant have mutually and amicably settled
their disputes outside the court and thereafter, they have also
filed Joint Compromise Petitions vide I.A. No.6440/2020 in
Criminal Revision No.595/2014, I.A. No.6443/2020 in Criminal
Revision No.155/2014 and I.A. No.6441/2020 in Criminal
Revision No.698/2015 which bear the signatures of the
petitioners in the respective Interlocutory Applications and the
signature of the Complainant and in which it is stated that
pursuant to compromise, now none of the parties have got any
grievance against each other.
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Singh
-vs- State of Madhya Pradesh and Another reported in 2014 (13)
SCC 75 has dealt with the effect of compromise between the
parties after recording conviction under non-compoundable
offences i.e. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section
4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and has observed in Para-8 as
under:
"8. ................................................................
Even though the appellant and the Respondent 2 wife have
arrived at a compromise, the order of conviction cannot be
quashed on that ground because the offences involved are non-
compoundable. However, in such a situation, if the court feels
that the parties have a real desire to bury the hatchet, in the
interest of peace, it can reduce the sentence of the accused to the
sentence already undergone. Section 498-A does not prescribe
any minimum punishment. Section 4 of the Dowry Act
prescribes minimum punishment of six months, but proviso
thereto states that the court may, for adequate or special reasons
to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of
imprisonment for a term which may be less than six months.
Therefore, sentence of the appellant can be reduced to sentence
already undergone by him."
23. Considering the subsequent development of amicable
settlement of the disputes between the petitioners and the
Opposite Party No.2 during pendency of these criminal revision
petitions and in view of the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Singh (supra), the
substantive sentences of the petitioners are hereby reduced to
the period already undergone by them. So far as the imposition
of fine is concerned, the same does not require any interference.
24. The petitioners are directed to deposit the fine amounts
before the learned trial court within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Upon
deposit of the fine amount the petitioners will be discharged
from their liability under the bail bonds. In case the fine amount
is not deposited within the aforesaid time, the defaulting
petitioner would undergo Simple Imprisonment for 03 months
as already directed by the learned court below.
25. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observations and
directions, all the three criminal revision petitions are hereby
disposed of.
26. Pending interlocutory application, are closed.
27. Let the Lower Court Records be immediately sent back to
the court concerned.
28. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned
court below through "FAX/Email".
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/
