Jharkhand High Court
Ismail Sk. Son Of Taijul Sk. vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 June, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 977 of 2012
Ismail Sk. son of Taijul Sk., resident of Village-Singadda,
P.O.- Malpahari, P.S.- Pakur (M), Distt.- Pakur (Jharkhand)
Through his father and natural guardian namely, Taijul Sk.
son of Late Arshad Sk., resident of Village- Singadda, P.O.-
Malpahari, P.S.- Pakur (M), Distt. Pakur (Jharkhand)
... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, A.P.P.
---
Through: Video Conferencing
C.A.V. On 07.04.2021 Pronounced on 04.06.2021
1. Heard Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Shekhar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.
3. The present criminal revision application is directed
against the Judgment dated 02.12.2011 passed in Criminal
Appeal No. 21/2011 by the learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Pakur whereby and whereunder the appeal
preferred by the petitioner under Section 52 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 has been
dismissed and the Judgment of conviction and the Dispositional
Order dated 30.03.2011 passed by learned Principal Magistrate,
Juvenile Justice Board, Pakur in G.R. Case No. 685/08, T.R. No.
08/11, Pakur (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 147/2008 has been
affirmed. The petitioner has been held guilty for the offence
punishable under Sections 498(A)/323 IPC and he has been
directed to be sent to the Special Home for his detention for a
period of one year for committing the offence under Section
498(A)/323 IPC. The period of detention already undergone by
the petitioner during the course of investigation, inquiry, etc.
has been directed to be set off against the term of the aforesaid
detention period of one year as provided under Rule 97(4) of
the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007.
Submission on behalf of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the
impugned judgments submitted that the impugned judgments
are perverse in view of the fact that the learned courts below
have not taken into consideration that the informant was
carrying pregnancy of four months at the time of marriage. The
learned counsel also submitted that apparently that was the
reason for the case filed against the petitioner who has been
convicted in an enquiry conducted by Juvenile Justice Board
(hereinafter referred as J.J. Board). He further submitted that
the impugned judgments are perverse and the same cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that the petitioner was under detention for a period from
26.11.2014 to 01.04.2015 during the pendency of the present
criminal revision petition and the petitioner was 16 to 17 years
of age on the date of occurrence and was 19 years old on the
date of judgment passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board.
Submission on behalf of the Opposite Party-State
6. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of Opposite Party-
State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer and submitted that
there are concurrent findings regarding assault as well as
demand of Rs. 20,000/- from the father of the informant. He
further submitted that even if the Complainant was four
months pregnant at the time of marriage, the same by itself
cannot be a reason to interfere in the impugned judgments of
conviction and sentence. The learned A.P.P. further submitted
that the manner in which the alleged offence has been
committed, no interference is called for, inasmuch as, the
learned Juvenile Justice Board has passed punishment of only
one year for offence under Sections 498-A and 323 of the Indian
Penal Code.
Findings of the Court
7. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the informant
was married to the petitioner. On 16.10.2008 at 11.30 P.M. the
petitioner called her in his room. She went inside the room and
saw that her father-in-law Taijul Sk. was standing at a corner
inside the room and her mother-in-law Lacho Bibi was standing
near her son. The petitioner abused her and caught her by hair
and demanded Rs. 20,000/-. The informant refused to oblige
them and then her mother-in-law poured kerosene over her
body and her father-in-law and her husband caught her hand
and legs and pushed her down and thereafter, her mother-in-
law lighted a match stick and threw upon her person. The sari
worn by the informant caught fire, but the informant managed
to escape from the room and her husband took Rs. 700/- which
was tied in her sari. The informant anyhow managed to flee
away out of the room and raised alarm upon which her parents
reached there and took her away.
8. On the basis of written report of informant, a case was
registered as Pakur (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 147/08 dated
21.10.2008 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 307, 379/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act
and after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and
cognizance was taken under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 307,
379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After enquiry the petitioner
was declared to be a juvenile and the case of the petitioner was
separated and sent to the Juvenile Justice Board, Pakur. The
substance of the accusation was explained to the petitioner to
which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and
thereafter, the enquiry was conducted.
9. During the course of enquiry, altogether five witnesses
were examined from the side of the prosecution. The informant
was examined as P.W.-3 and the mother of the informant was
examined as P.W.-2. P.W.-4 was the A.S.I. and Investigation
Officer of the case. P.W.-5 was the uncle of the informant. The
written report was marked as Exhibit-1 and true copy of the
formal F.I.R. was marked as Exhibit-2. The statement of the
petitioner was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and he
denied the prosecution case and pleaded innocence. However,
he did not lead any defence evidence.
10. The learned J.J. Board considered the material on record
and vide para-14 of the judgment, the learned J.J. Board was of
the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case for
alleged offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and
held the petitioner not guilty under the said Section. Learned
J.J. Board vide para-15 further held that the prosecution failed
to prove its case under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code
against the petitioner and held the petitioner not guilty under
the said Section. So far as the alleged offence under Section 307
of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the learned J.J. Board
discussed the evidences in para-16 of its judgment and noted
contradictions / omissions in the depositions of the various
witnesses and also recorded that P.W.-4, Investigating Officer
during the course of investigation had not seized any Sari or
jerkin to support the allegation of attempt to burn the informant.
The learned J.J. Board vide para-16 clearly recorded that the
prosecution has not been able to prove the charge under Section
307 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner beyond the
shadow of reasonable doubt and held the petitioner not guilty
under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
11. However, the learned J.J. Board, after considering the
evidences on record, held the petitioner guilty for the alleged
offence under Section 498-A and Section 323 of the Indian Penal
Code vide para-17 and 18 of the judgment which are quoted as
under:
"17. P.W.-1 has stated that the occurrence took place about
two years ago at night. For the dowry demand of Rs. 20,000/-
informant Sarjina Bibi was beaten up by her husband Ismail
Sekh and others and ultimately, she was driven out of her
matrimonial home. In para-4 she has stated that when she took
Sarjina Bibi to her Sasural, Ismail Sekh demanded money in her
presence. P.W.-2 has stated that her daughter Sarjina Bibi was
married to Ismail Sekh two years ago and the occurrence took
place about one year three-four months ago on thursday night.
After hearing a noise, she went to P.O. i.e. matrimonial home of
the Informant and she saw that for the dowry demand of Rs.
20,000/- her daughter Sarjina Bibi was being beaten up by her
husband Ismail Sekh and others. The accused sent Sarjina Bibi
to her (mother's) house. In para-6 she has stated that occurrence
took place on 16.10.08 and about a year ago from the date of
occurrence her daughter was married to Ismail Sekh. She denied
that her daughter was divorced by her husband. She has further
stated that at the time of marriage of her daughter, a Kabil-nama
was prepared. In para-8 she has stated that the accused used to
beat up her daughter (P.W.-3) earlier also. P.W.-3 (informant)
has deposed that the occurrence took place about one year ago on
Thursday night at 11.30 p.m. at her Sasural. For the dowry
demand, she was beaten up by her husband and others. When
she cried out for help her parents and other villagers came and
thereafter, she went to her parents' house. In para-10 she has
stated that her Sasural and her parents' house were situated in
the same village and between her Sasural and parents' house
there was a house of another person. P.W. 4 is the I.O. and she
has proved the place of occurrence. P.W. 5 has deposed that after
her marriage Sarjina went to her Sasural and there she was kept
properly for about one and a half months. Thereafter her
husband Ismail Sekh asked her to bring Rs. 20,000/- from her
mother. When she could not bring the said amount, he beat up
her.
18. From the analysis of the prosecution evidence available
on the record and in view of above discussion, we find that for
the dowry demand of Rs. 20,000/- informant (P.W.-3) was
subjected to cruelty by her husband namely accused, Ismail
Sekh. He further caused hurt to her. The prosecution has been
able to prove its case under Section 498(A)/323 of the I.P.C.
against juvenile Ismail Sekh beyond the shadow of reasonable
doubt."
12. Thus, this Court finds that the learned J.J. Board after
discussing the evidences on record acquitted the petitioner for
the alleged offences under Section 379, 307 and 504 of the
Indian Penal Code and convicted him under Sections 498(A)
and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
13. The learned appellate court also considered all the
evidences on record and also considered the cross-examination
of the prosecution witnesses including the fact that the
informant was pregnant of four months at the time of marriage.
The Informant in her cross-examination, admitted that she was
pregnant before marriage. The learned appellate court also
considered the fact that it was put to the informant as
suggestion in cross-examination by the defence that she had
concealed the fact of her pregnancy at the time of marriage and
thereafter, she was divorced, to which she denied. Learned
appellate court also considered that no oral or documentary
evidence was adduced by the defence to substantiate that the
informant was divorced by the petitioner on the ground of
pregnancy. The learned appellate court vide para-10 has
observed that no oral or documentary evidence has been
adduced on behalf of the petitioner in his support to
substantiate the fact that he had divorced the informant and
thus rejected the plea of divorce as not believable. After
discussing all the evidences on record, learned appellate court
summed up its findings at para-11 and 12 of the judgments
which is quoted hereinbelow:
"11. In summing up, I would like to observe that the
prosecution witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case.
The evidence of the informant inspires confidence. The mother of
the informant has also supported the factum of occurrence as it
has come in evidence that the house of the parents of the
informant is situated in the vicinity of the place of occurrence as
such presence of the prosecution witnesses at the time of
occurrence cannot be doubted. The juvenile Justice Board after
holding inquiry passed dispositional order u/s 15 of the J.J. Act
and directed him to be kept in detention for a period of one year
and the period already undergone by him during inquiry shall be
set off in the detention period as provided under Rule97(4) J.J.
Rules, 2007. The period of detention appears to be adequate and
not excessive. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it further
transpires that the Principal Magistrate of J.J. B. has considered
the report of the Probation Officer also has rightly passed
dispositional order considering the facts and circumstances of the
case.
12. In view of the discussions made above I find and hold
that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all
reasonable doubts against the appellant/juvenile in conflict with
law and the impugned judgment of J.J. Board and dispositional
order dated 30.03.11 needs no interference and are affirmed. I do
not find any merit in the criminal appeal and hence it is
dismissed."
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court has explained the power of the
revisional court in the case of Jagannath Choudhary and others
reported in (2002) 5 SCC 659 at para-9 as under:-
"Incidentally the object of the revisional jurisdiction as
envisaged u/s 401 was to confer upon superior criminal courts
a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction, in order to
correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of
law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precautions of
apparent harshness of treatment which has resulted on the one
hand in some injury to the due maintenance of law and order,
or on the other hand in some underserved hardship to
individuals. (See in this context the decision of this Court in
Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary). The main question which
the High Court has to consider in an application in revision is
whether substantial justice has been done. If however, the same
has been an appeal, the application would be entitled to
demand an adjudication upon all questions of fact or law
which he wishes to raise, but in revision the only question is
whether the court should interfere in the interests of justice.
Where the court concerned does not appear to have committed
any illegality or material irregularity or impropriety in
passing the impugned judgment and order, the revision cannot
succeed. If the impugned order apparently is presentable,
without any such infirmity which may render it completely
perverse or unacceptable and when there is no failure of
justice, interference cannot be had in exercise of revisional
jurisdiction."
15. The revisional power is further explained in the case of
Ramesh Kumar Bajaj reported in (2009) 1 JCR 684 (Jhar) at
para-13 which reads as follows:
"It is well settled that revisional interference may be justified
where:
(i) the decision is grossly erroneous.
(ii) there is no compliance with the provisions of law.
(iii) the finding of fact affecting the decision is not based on
evidence.
(iv) material evidence of the parties is not considered and
(v) judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely."
16. This Court finds that the learned courts below have
discussed all the evidences on record including cross-
examination of the prosecution witnesses including the
allegation that the informant was pregnant at the time of
marriage and held the petitioner guilty for the offences under
Sections 498(A) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code by well-
reasoned judgements. Merely because the informant was
alleged to be pregnant at the time of marriage, it does not create
any doubt on the prosecution story of demand of Rs.20,000/-
and torture of the informant on account of non-fulfillment of
the demand. This Court finds that the basic ingredients of the
offence under Sections 498(A) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code
have been satisfied in the instant case beyond all reasonable
doubts. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in
the impugned judgments passed by the learned Juvenile Justice
Board, Pakur as well as by the learned appellate court. The
demand of Rs. 20,000/- as well as the consequent torture on
account of non-fulfilment of the demand has been proved
against the petitioner beyond the shadow of all reasonable
doubt and there are consistent evidences on record to this effect
and concurrent findings recorded in the impugned judgments.
17. So far as dispositional order under Section 15 of the
Juvenile Justice Act and the direction to the petitioner to be kept
in detention for a period of one year is concerned, the learned
lower appellate court found the detention order to be adequate
and not excessive. Learned lower appellate court also recorded
that the learned J.J. Board has considered the report of the
Probation Officer and has rightly passed the order of
disposition considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
18. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, the
present criminal revision petition is hereby dismissed.
19. The bail bond furnished by the petitioner is hereby
cancelled.
20. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as
not pressed.
21. Let the lower court records be sent back to the court
concerned immediately.
22. Let a copy of this Judgment be communicated to the
learned court below through 'FAX/Email'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit
