Jharkhand High Court
Bablu Prasad @ Babloo Prasad Son Of ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 868 of 2012
Bablu Prasad @ Babloo Prasad son of Sri Karu Ram, resident of
New Matkuria, Washepur, P.O. - Dhanbad, P.S.- Bank More,
District - Dhanbad ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Ranjeet Prasad S/o Sri Kedar Prasad, resident of Mohallah
Ranga tand, P.O. & P.S.- Dhanbad, District - Dhanbad
... ... Opposite Parties
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P.
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
11/02.07.2021 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, learned A.P.P.
appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.
3. This criminal revision application has been filed with a
prayer to set-aside the judgment dated 01.07.2008 passed by
learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No.167 of
2004 whereby the learned appellate court has confirmed the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.06.2004
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in
connection with C.P. Case No.918 of 1999 / T.R. No.8 of 2004.
The learned trial court has convicted the petitioner for offence
under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced the
petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-.
Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been ultimately convicted under Section 498(A)
of Indian Penal Code and he is husband of the victim lady who
is the sister of the Complainant. The petitioner has been
sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years
and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The learned counsel submits that there
are material contradictions in the evidences on record, which
create doubt in the prosecution case. He further submits that on
the same set of evidences, the other co-accused have been
acquitted by the learned appellate court and the petitioner has
been convicted only because he is the husband of the victim
lady.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that
though no affidavit has been filed regarding the present status
of the victim lady, but his client has come to know that the
victim lady has already remarried and settled. The learned
counsel submits that notices were issued to the Complainant
(Opposite Party No.2), but in spite of service of notice, he has
not appeared to oppose the present case.
4. While advancing his argument on the point of sentence,
the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
does not have any criminal antecedent. He submits that the
marriage was solemnized on 11.06.1995. The Complaint case
was filed on 05.08.1999 and as on date, more than 20 years has
elapsed. He submits that the petitioner has faced the rigors of
the criminal case for a long time and considering this aspect of
the matter, the sentence of the petitioner may be modified.
Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner was
convicted on 08.06.2004 and at that time, he was 30 years of age.
He submits that accordingly the present age of the petitioner is
more than 45 years.
Arguments of the State
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite
Party- State, on the other hand, has submitted that there are
concurrent findings recorded by the learned court below so far
as the petitioner is concerned and after meticulous examination
of the evidences on record, both the learned courts below have
convicted the petitioner under Section 498(A) of the Indian
Penal Code.
6. The learned counsel also submits that at a later stage, the
victim lady was living in a rented house and there also, she was
subjected to torture. The learned counsel submits that there was
a demand of Rs. 20,000/- and a scooter by the petitioner from
the victim lady and on account of non-fulfillment of the
demand, the victim lady was abused, assaulted and driven
away from her matrimonial house. He submits that the
prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt
and there is neither any perversity, nor any illegality in the
impugned judgements calling for any interference in revisional
jurisdiction. He also submits that there is no scope for re-
appreciation of materials on record for coming to a different
finding.
7. The learned counsel for the State further submits that the
defence has not taken any pain to rebut the evidences produced
by the prosecution and the prosecution witnesses have
consistently deposed against the present petitioner. The learned
counsel for the State also submits that minor contradiction
cannot be a ground for interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Finding of this Court
8. This Court finds that as per the Complaint case filed on
05.08.1999, the victim lady namely, Devi Devi who is the sister
of the Complainant was married to the petitioner on 11.06.1995
and her gauna was performed in the year 1997. After marriage,
she remained in her in-laws' place for one year and thereafter,
she was brought to Dhanbad and she started residing in the
house of the co-accused Chinta Devi (maternal aunt of the
petitioner) and Hari Prasad. It was stated in the Complaint that
at the time of marriage, Rs.20,000/- cash and ornaments worth
Rs.5,000/- and other household goods worth Rs.15,000/- were
given by the parents of the victim lady. The accused persons
were not satisfied by the said gifts and demanded of
Rs.20,000/- and a scooter and on account of not satisfying the
demand, they started torturing the victim lady in spite of the
fact that the victim lady told them that her brother is a poor
person and cannot meet the demands. It was further case of the
Complainant that the accused persons told the victim lady that
if she does not bring dowry, then she will be harassed and
killed. It was also alleged that on 01.08.1999, when the
Complainant along with Balram Singh went to meet his sister,
they were also abused and assaulted by Hari Prasad.
9. After enquiry, a prima facie case under Section 498(A) of
the Indian Penal Code was found to be true against the
petitioner as well as Chinta Devi and Hari Prasad.
Consequently, processes under Section 202 Cr.P.C were issued.
Upon their appearance, charge was ultimately framed against
all the accused on 03.10.2002 to which they pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried.
10. In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution
adduced oral evidence and the victim lady namely, Devi Devi
was examined as C.W.-3. The accused also adduced oral
evidence of one Vijay Prasad and Uma Shankar Prasad. The
statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C in which they denied the evidence put to them and
pleaded innocence. It is not in dispute that C.W.-3 is the legally
married wife of the petitioner. She stated that the petitioner
took her to Dhanbad because he was doing job in Dhanbad and
after three months of their stay, all the accused persons started
demanding Rs.20,000/- and a scooter otherwise they will kill
her or leave her. She has also stated that the accused persons
used to assault her and tried to throw her in the well.
11. This Court finds that the learned trial court considered
the oral and documentary evidences adduced on behalf of the
prosecution and also the arguments advanced on behalf of the
parties and recorded its findings in Para-11 and 12 which read
as under:
"11. I have carefully gone through the both oral and
documentary evidence available on record. I find that invariably
all prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case to
the extent that Babloo Prasad, Chinta Devi and Hari Prasad
committed cruelty on the person of C.W.3 in relation to demand
of dowry i.e., Rs.20,000/- and a scooter. I find that all the
prosecution witnesses are closely related to each other, but I find
that they are natural witness to the alleged occurrence as they are
relatives of C.W.3, who seems to be acquainted with the alleged
occurrence. The D.W.-1 who claim to reside just 20 feets away
from the house of Chinta Devi, stated that there was quarrel
between both the parties, but surprisingly he claimed ignorance
of knowing the reason of dispute. Now I find that the version of
C.W.3 that she has been tortured by the accused persons, has
been very well corroborated by other P.Ws. The prosecution has
also filed in his certified copy of order dt 07.08.02 in (Mat) S.
No.236/2001 and the certified copy of judgment in M.P. Case
No.211/00. Although the prosecution witnesses were examined
at length, but nothing has come out to discredit these versions.
The minor contradictions present among the evidence of PWs are
not fatal to the prosecution stand.
12. Thus, from the discussion of the facts, evidences and
circumstances of the case, it is held that prosecution has been able
to prove the charges against all the accused persons beyond all
shadow of reasonable doubts. The accused been found and held
guilty for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC
and they are convicted thereunder."
12. This Court further finds that the learned appellate court
also considered the oral and documentary evidences adduced
on behalf of the prosecution and also the arguments advanced
on behalf of the parties and recorded its findings in Para-19 to
23 which read as under:
"19. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is
apparent that there is no averment in the complaint petition that
Debi Devi was pushed in the well. The statement of witnesses
before the court is an afterthought. No specific date has been
given as to when this occurrence took place.
20. Though a general statement has been made that all
the three appellants used to demand Rs.20,000/- and a scooter,
the father of Debi Devi has stated that only appellant Bablu
Prasad had made the demand of Rs.20,000/- and a scooter. He
had never talked to appellant Chinta Devi.
21. The case of the prosecution is that marriage took place
in the year 1995 and „gauna‟ was performed in the year 1997.
Debi Devi stayed in her sasural for one year. All have stated that
her stay for one year was peacefully. However, Debi Devi in her
cross-examination has stated that the appellant Bablu Prasad
started torturing her after one year from her marriage. The case
of the prosecution is that the demand was made after six months
from the time when Bablu Prasad started residing in the house of
Chinta Devi and Hari Prasad is falsified. Ranjit Prasad (C.W.6)
has categorically stated that demand was made for the first time
when Bablu Prasad started residing in a rented house. He has
also stated that there was no well in that house. This statement
fortifies my observation that the demand was not made in the
house of Chinta Devi and Hari Prasad. The statement of Ranjit
Prasad that appellant Chinta Devi and Hari Prasad were
instrumentally holding of Panchayati for reconciliation of
appellant Bablu Prasad and Debi Devi further strengthened my
view that they have no hand in the offence as alleged by the
complainant.
22. However, all the witnesses have supported the facts
that Bablu Prasad had demanded Rs.20,000/- and a scooter. They
have also supported the fact that when the demand was not met
Debi Devi was abused, assaulted and driven away from the
matrimonial home. In my view, the prosecution has been able to
prove its case against the appellant Bablu Prasad for offence u/s
498A IPC beyond all reasonable doubts.
23. As far as appellant Chinta Devi and Hari Prasad are
concerned, I am of the view that the learned court below wrongly
held them guilty. Accordingly, their appeal is allowed and
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the
learned court below is set aside."
13. This Court finds that the learned courts below have
carefully scrutinized the materials on record including the
evidence of the victim lady and have convicted the petitioner
for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code by
well-reasoned judgments. The conviction of the petitioner was
sustained by the appellate court, though the other accused were
given the benefit of doubt.
14. This Court finds that the victim lady, who has been
examined as C.W.-3, in her evidence has fully supported the
version stated in the Complaint that the petitioner-husband had
demanded Rs.20,000/- and a scooter and on account of non-
fulfillment of the demand, he had harassed, assaulted and
tortured the victim lady and she was ultimately thrown out of
her matrimonial house. The act of the petitioner certainly
amounted to cruelty against the wife-victim lady within the
meaning of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. C.W.-1
Balram Singh, C.W.-2 Sugriv Singh, C.W.-4 Vijay Prasad, C.W.-
5 Kedar Prasad and C.W.-6 Ranjeet Prasad have fully
corroborated the evidence of the victim lady. This Court finds
that there is enough material as against the petitioner satisfying
the basic ingredients of the offence under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code.
15. This Court does not find any illegality, perversity or
irregularity in the impugned judgment of conviction of the
petitioner and accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner
under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is upheld.
On the point of Sentence
16. From perusal of Para-2 of the present criminal revision
petition, this Court finds that it has been disclosed by the
petitioner that the petitioner had earlier moved this Court
against the impugned judgment vide Criminal Revision No.970
of 2008 without surrender certificate and this Court vide order
dated 22.06.2009 granted two weeks' time for removing the
defect with a clear indication that failing which the revision
application shall stand rejected without reference to the Bench.
The Criminal Revision No.970 of 2008 was rejected vide order
dated 06.07.2009 on account of non-compliance of order dated
22.06.2009.
17. This Court finds that the present revision was filed again
against the impugned judgment dated 01.07.2008 vide affidavit
dated 04.10.2012 with a petition for condonation of delay being
I.A. No.1593 of 2012 after surrendering before the learned court
below on 28.09.2012. Thereafter, vide order dated 02.11.2012,
the delay of 1467 days in filing the present petition was
condoned, the case was admitted and the petitioner was
directed to be enlarged on bail. The petitioner was ultimately
released on furnishing of bail bonds before the learned court
below on 08.11.2012.
18. This Court finds that the petitioner was convicted on
08.06.2004 by the learned trial court and his appeal was
dismissed by the learned appellate court on 01.07.2008. The
non-bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner vide
order dated 25.07.2008 by the learned court below after
dismissal of the appeal and process under Section 82/83 Cr. P.C
was also issued by the learned court below vide order dated
19.04.2011. Ultimately, the petitioner surrendered before the
learned court below only on 28.09.2012 and thereafter, filed the
present case.
19. Considering the aforesaid fact situation, this Court is of
the considered view that the petitioner cannot take advantage
of long pendency of his case and consequent sufferings and
cannot take advantage of refusal to surrender for a long time
even after dismissal of his appeal by the learned appellate
court.
20. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this
Court does not have any sympathetic view with the petitioner
so as to modify the sentence and accordingly, the prayer to
modify the sentence of the petitioner is rejected.
21. With the aforesaid findings, the present criminal revision
petition is hereby dismissed.
22. The bail bond furnished by the petitioner is cancelled.
23. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
24. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as
not pressed.
25. Let the Lower Court Records be immediately sent back to
the court concerned.
26. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned
court below through "FAX/Email".
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/
