Jharkhand High Court
Durga Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 955 of 2012
Durga Prasad, son of Late Kishun Chandra Pandit
... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate
Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Akchansh Kishore, Advocate
For the State-Opp. Party : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P.
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 09.04.2021 Pronounced on 04.06.2021
1. Heard Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner assisted by Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha and Mr. Akchansh Kishore,
Advocates.
2. Heard Mr. Tarun Kumar, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of
the State-Opposite Party.
3. The petitioner, husband of the informant, has preferred the present
criminal revision petition against his conviction and sentence under
Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned trial court
and confirmed by the learned appellate court. All other accused family
members of the petitioner i.e. mother-in-law and two sisters -in-law have
been acquitted by the learned appellate court for alleged offence under
section 498(A) of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry prohibition Act. The
petitioner has also been acquitted for alleged offence under sections 3
and 4 of Dowry prohibition Act.
4. The Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated
23.06.2009 was passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Civil Court, Ghatsila in G.R. No. 326 of 1998 / T.R. No. 122 of 2009.
Altogether six accused had faced trial. Out of them four were family
members of the informant -
Petitioner-husband of the complainant;
Mother -in-law of the informant - Ram Pyari Devi @ Ramdeiya
Devi;
Two Sisters-in law of the informant namely Muniya Devi @
Meena and Phulpati Devi @ Phulmati Devi.
The remaining two were
Vishwanath Singh Yadav and Gopal Sharma, both friends of
the petitioner.
5. The result of the trial is summarized as under: -
Accused Conviction u/s Punishment
Petitioner, his 498(A) of IPC RI for 02 ½ years and fine of
Rs.5,000/- for the offence under
mother and and 3/4 of
Section 498(A) IPC
two sisters. the Dowry
RI for 06 months and fine of
Prohibition Act Rs.1,000/- for the offence under
Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act.
RI for 06 months and fine of
Rs.500/- for the offence under
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act
The fine amounts also had default
clauses. The learned trial court
directed that all the sentences shall
run concurrently.
Petitioner-husband to pay
compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to
the Informant for the physical and
mental cruelty suffered by her.
Two friends of 109 of IPC RI for 06 months and fine of
the petitioner
Rs.2,000/-
6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with Judgment of conviction and
the order of sentence, the petitioner alongwith his mother and two sisters
preferred Criminal Appeal No. 184 of 2009 in which the learned
appellate court vide Judgment dated 30.03.2012 passed by the learned
Addl. Sessions Judge, Ghatsila confirmed the conviction and sentence of
the petitioner for the offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal
Code only, but set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner
under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also set aside the
order directing the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the
Informant and partly allowed the criminal appeal with respect to the
petitioner. The learned appellate court also set aside the conviction and
sentence of the mother and two sisters of the petitioner.
Arguments on behalf of the petitioner
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is the husband of the Informant and his conviction under
Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code has been confirmed by the
learned appellate court by recording specific findings at Para-32 of its
judgment. He further submitted that the learned appellate court has
recorded that the prosecution has been able to prove the allegation of
subjecting the informant to cruelty by the husband and such allegation
was supported by evidence of the informant P.W.-7 read with the
evidence of P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6 who have supported the
evidences of one another that husband used to assault the informant.
8. The learned counsel submitted that the learned appellate court vide
Para-31 read with Para-13 and 35 of its judgment has held that neither
the demand of dowry was proved, nor the accused could be convicted
under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
9. Learned counsel further submitted that as the demand of property
was not proved, the cruelty has to be seen in the light of explanation (a)
of Section 498(A) of Indian Penal Code. He also submitted that all assault
may not come within the meaning of 'cruelty' under explanation (a) of
Section 498(A) of Indian Penal Code, but the same is required to be of
such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or
physical) of the woman and for that purpose also, evidence was required
to be led.
10. Learned counsel submitted that the learned appellate court vide
Para-32 has convicted the petitioner under Section 498(A) of Indian Penal
Code by holding that the petitioner has not managed to keep and
maintain his wife properly and has not taken any step since long for
treatment of her mental ailment and such omission and commission
alleged and proved against the petitioner are sufficient for a deserted
wife to commit any act dangerous to her life. He submitted that there is
no allegation on record that the wife was subjected to any cruelty of the
nature contemplated under explanation (a) of Section 498(A) of Indian
Penal Code. He further submitted that the finding of the learned
appellate court that since long the petitioner has not taken any steps for
treatment of his wife is also contrary to the impugned judgment of the
learned appellate court in Para-21 wherein, the deposition of the
informant has been recorded where she clearly deposed that her
treatment took place continuously for 15 to 16 days in the private mental
hospital, Ranchi and during her treatment, her father and her husband,
both were with her. He also submitted that it has also come in evidence
that at the time of marriage itself, the mental condition of the informant
was not sound. Learned counsel also submitted that not only there is
total absence of evidence on record to bring home the basic ingredients
of 'cruelty' as contemplated under explanation (a) of Section 498(A) of
Indian Penal Code, but also the prosecution had filed such evidences
which were discarded by the learned appellate court by citing reasons.
He submitted that the learned appellate court has recorded finding in
connection with such prosecution evidences which were brought before
the learned court below by way of afterthought and the learned appellate
court rejected those evidences by speaking order.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that considering the
other findings recorded by the learned appellate court, the present case is
a fit case where the learned appellate court should have granted benefit
of doubt to the petitioner as the veracity of the prosecution evidence and
the manner in which it was produced before the learned trial court itself
created a doubt in the prosecution case. The learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon the judgement passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court which is reported in (2003) 2 SCC 401(Lallu
Manjhi and another versus State of Jharkhand), para 10.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the statement of
the petitioner recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure
to submit that only vague questions were put to him by the learned trial
court and the circumstances, which have been relied upon by the learned
appellate court in Para-32 of the impugned judgment, were not
specifically put to the petitioner by the learned trial court while
recording statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and accordingly, the
same could not have been a basis for upholding the conviction of the
petitioner under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. Such approach
of the learned court below has caused prejudice to the petitioner.
13. He submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction of the
petitioner is ex-facie perverse and unsustainable in the eyes of law and is
fit to be set aside.
Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State
14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand,
submitted that both the learned courts below have convicted the
petitioner for offence under Section 498(A) of Indian Penal Code and
accordingly, no interference is called for in the present case under
revisional jurisdiction.
15. However, he did not dispute the fact that the learned trial court had
convicted all the accused, not only under Section 498(A) of Indian Penal
Code, but also under Section 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, but
the learned appellate court has not convicted the petitioner on account of
demand of any property/dowry, but on account of assault to the
informant by stating that the act of the petitioner was sufficient for the
wife to commit any act dangerous to her life. He also did not dispute the
fact that all the accused persons were acquitted for offence under Section
4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and all other accused persons were
also acquitted under Section 498(A) of Indian Penal Code and the
conviction of the petitioner was sustained only under Section 498(A) of
Indian Penal Code. He also did not dispute the fact that as per the
appellate court's judgment, the petitioner was present at the time of
treatment of his wife in the mental hospital and also the fact that even at
the time of marriage, the mental condition of the wife was not found
sound. He also did not dispute the fact that certain evidences which were
produced from the side of the prosecution including some documentary
evidences were discarded by the learned appellate court after full
discussion with an observation that those evidences were manipulated
and produced by way of afterthought and there were sufficient
improvement and supplements made in the allegations which were not
even reflecting in the initial allegation made by the informant of the case.
Findings of this Court
16. 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 case was registered as Musabani P.S. Case
No.42/1998 dated 07.10.1998 under Sections 498(A)/109 of the Indian
Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the
petitioner-husband; Ram Pyari Devi -mother-in-law; Phulpati Devi,
Muniya Devi, two sisters-in-law; Vishwanath Singh Yadav and Gopal
Sharma, two friends of the petitioner.
After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted
charge-sheet under Sections 498(A)/109 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the five co-accused
persons and thereafter, submitted supplementary charge-sheet against
the petitioner under the same sections. Accordingly, the learned
A.C.J.M., Ghatsila took cognizance of the offence under the same sections
against the petitioner and other accused persons.
On 04.10.2002, the charges under aforesaid provisions were framed
against the accused which were read over and explained to them in
Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether 10 witnesses in
support of its case. P.W.-1 is Thakur Prasad, P.W.-2 is Ramyash Pandit,
P.W.-3 is Gunjan Machhuwa who has been declared hostile by the
prosecution, P.W.-4 is Sanjay Kumar Prasad who is the own brother of
the Informant, P.W.-5 is Prabha Devi who is the mother of the Informant,
P.W.-6 is Narendra Prasad who is the father of the Informant, P.W.-7 is
Jayanti Devi who is the Informant herself, P.W.-8 is Harbansh Lal
Srivastava, P.W.-9 is Satya Prakash Singh who is the Investigating
Officer of the case and P.W.-10 is Lalan Prasad Verma who is a formal
witness.
The statement of the petitioner and co-accused were recorded under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
The defence examined 09 witnesses in their defence. D.W.-1 is
Prabhawati Devi, D.W.-2 is Krishna Lal Kanto, D.W.-3 is Kapilmuni
Devi, D.W.-4 is Ramji Prasad, D.W.-5 is Vijay Pandey, D.W.-6 is Lalita
Devi, D.W.-7 is Hiralal Prasad, D.W.-8 is Ashok Kumar Singh and D.W.-
9 is Mukesh Mandal. The defence exhibited the treatment papers of the
Informant as Exhibits-A, A/1, A/2, A/3 and A/4, reply dated 27.06.1998
sent on behalf of Narendra Prasad to Sri Suresh Chandra Choudhury,
Advocate of the petitioner to the notice dated 16.05.1998 as Exhibit-B and
the legal notice dated 16.05.1998 sent by the petitioner to Narendra
Prasad as Exhibit-B/1.
17. The prosecution case is based on the written report dated 07.10.1998
lodged by the Informant namely, Jayanti Devi (P.W.-7) before the
Officer-in-charge, Musabani P.S. alleging interalia that the marriage of
the Informant with the petitioner was solemnized on 18.05.1994 and at
the time of the marriage, the father of the Informant had given
Rs.80,000/- in cash, ornaments worth Rs.40,000/-, T.V., Scooter and
several other articles by way of tilak. Thereafter, she went to her
matrimonial house and stayed there for 08 days and came to her parental
house with the petitioner and stayed for 03 days. She again went to her
matrimonial house alongwith the petitioner. It was alleged that after few
months, the petitioner and her mother-in-law asked her to bring one
Hero-Honda Motorcycle and Rs.40,000/- in cash for construction of the
house and her two sisters-in-law were also present who supported the
demand, but the Informant denied to raise the demand to her father. In
the meantime, two friends of the petitioner namely, Vishwanath Singh
Yadav and Gopal Sharma called the petitioner out of the house and
instigated the petitioner for making the said demand from the Informant
and for driving her out from the house, if she does not put the demand
to her father and thereafter, both went away. After few hours, the
petitioner again asked the Informant to make the said demand and on
refusal, the accused persons abused and assaulted her by fists and slaps.
The Informant informed her father who came there and pacified the
accused persons. It was further alleged that after one month, her
husband and in-laws repeated the said demand before her and on
refusal, they assaulted and drove her out from her matrimonial house
and she came to the house of her father. Thereafter, her father made
efforts to resolve the matter, but her in-laws did not agree and the
petitioner with the help of Gopal Sharma made efforts to kill the
Informant and her father. The delay in filing the FIR was explained by
stating that repeated efforts were made at the social level to make the
accused understand. As per the written report itself, the informant was
living with her parents in their house.
Consideration of prosecution evidence by the trial court
18. The learned trial court recorded that it is not in dispute that the
marriage between the petitioner and the Informant was solemnized on
18.05.1994 according to Hindu rites and customs. P.W.-7 deposed that
at the time of marriage, her father had given Rs.80,000/- cash, ornaments
worth Rs.40,000/-, scooter, bed, Almirah, etc. and other household
articles. She went to her matrimonial house and after some days, she
came to her parental house alongwith her husband and after three
months, she again went to her matrimonial house where after one
month, the petitioner started misbehaving with her and demanded
Rs.40,000/- and one Hero Honda Motorcycle to bring from her father.
When she said that her father has already given many articles and has
incurred expenses in the marriage and he cannot give any more things,
the petitioner used to assault her and his friends namely, Vishwanath
Singh Yadav and Gopal Sharma used to instigate him to demand dowry
and she was kept hungry for several days together. She further deposed
that the petitioner burnt her private part by means of kachhuwa chhap
agarbatti and she received treatment from doctor of H.C.L. Company. To
a court question, she replied that she had told Dr. Gupta that her
husband has burnt her private part by burning kachhuwa chhap
agarbatti. When she gave the information regarding the cruelty
committed at her matrimonial house to her father, her father came and
tried to pacify and compromise, but they did not agree. On 08.10.1994,
the accused persons assaulted her and the petitioner and mother-in-law
drove her out from her matrimonial house. After some days, the
petitioner came to her parental house, but he repeated the demand.
Lastly, on 07.08.1997, the petitioner brutally assaulted her and drove her
out from her matrimonial house and then she came to her parental
house. Her father called a meeting of the panchayat, but the accused
persons did not agree with the panchayat and in this way, 4-5 attempts
were made, but the matter could not be resolved and finally having no
option, she lodged the present case. She exhibited the written report as
Exhibit-2. In her cross-examination, she admitted that she has filed a case
for maintenance and she had received treatment at Mental Hospital,
Ranchi. The learned trial court recorded that the Informant has fully
supported the facts stated in the F.I.R.
19. The learned trial court further recorded in para 9 and 10 of its
judgement that except P.W.-3, the prosecution witnesses P.W.-1 to P.W.-
8, in their evidence, have supported the cruelty committed to the
Informant by the petitioner and his relatives and they have also
supported the facts regarding the demand of Rs.40,000/- and Hero
Honda Motorcycle as dowry from the Informant and also the facts
regarding Rs.80,000/- in cash, ornaments worth Rs.40,000/-, T.V.,
Scooter and other household articles taken by the petitioner from the
father of the Informant at the time of the marriage. The learned trial
court further recorded that P.W.-1 is an independent witness who had
seen the swollen cheek of the Informant and has corroborated the efforts
of compromise between both the parties. P.W.-2 is also an independent
witness and has also supported the facts of the prosecution case. P.W.-3
has been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.-4 is the own brother
of the Informant and he has supported the F.I.R. and he exhibited the
letter dated 29.06.1994 written by the Informant as Exhibit-1 and also
exhibited a small chit of paper in the writing and signature of the
petitioner as Exhibit-1/1. P.W.-5 has also supported the F.I.R. and the
cruelty committed to the Informant by the petitioner. P.W.-6 has also
supported the facts stated in the F.I.R. and has also corroborated the
demand of motorcycle and Rs.40,000/- as dowry made by the accused
persons and the cruelty committed to the Informant by the petitioner and
he is a credible witness. P.W.-8 has also supported the F.I.R. and from his
cross-examination, it is clear that the accused persons had tortured the
Informant for demand of dowry and he is also a credible witness. P.W.-9
is the Investigating Officer of the case and he has supported the place of
occurrence and he has exhibited the signature of the Officer-in-charge on
the F.I.R. as Exhibit-3 and the endorsement on the written report with
regard to registration of the case as Exhibit-2/1. In his cross-examination,
he admitted that in course of investigation, it transpired that the mental
condition of the Informant was not sound which created frictions. P.W.-
10 has exhibited the College Leaving Certificate of the Informant as
Exhibit-3/1 and the delivery receipt of purchasing the Bajaj Scooter
issued in the name of the Informant as Exhibit-4.
20. The learned trial court further recorded that the prosecution
exhibited the sanction order for prosecution of the accused persons
under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act issued by the District
Magistrate, East Singhbhum as Exhibit-5, certified copy of order dated
21.08.2000 passed in C-1 Case No. 35/1999 filed by B.N. Singh Yadav
against the father of the Informant as Exhibit-6, certified copy of the
orders dated 27.05.2004 and 04.06.2004 passed in C-1 Case No.485/2002
filed by the petitioner against the Informant and her father and six others
as Exhibit-7, certified copy of the evidence of Ramji Prasad (D.W.-4)
adduced in C-1 Case No.485/2002 as Exhibit-8, certified copy of the
evidence of Dayanand Prasad Saw adduced in C-1 Case No.485/2002 as
Exhibit-8/1, certified copy of the Complaint filed in C-1 Case
No.485/2002 as Exhibit-9, certified copy of the Complaint filed in C-1
Case No.35/1999 by Bishwa Nath Singh Yadav against the father and
brother of the Informant as Exhibit-10, certified copy of the evidence of
Vishwa Nath Singh Yadav adduced in C-1 Case No.35/1999 as Exhibit-
11 and the certified copies of the evidences of Bharat Prasad, Mukesh
Kumar Mandal and Dayanand Saw adduced in C-1 Case No.35/1999 as
Exhibits- 11/1, 11/2 and 11/3 respectively.
Consideration of evidence of defence by the trial court
21. The learned trial court considered the oral and documentary
evidences adduced on behalf of the defence and further recorded its
findings in Paras-20 and 21. The learned trial court disbelieved and
discarded the evidence of D.W.-1 on the basis that she is a relative of the
petitioner and the court also observed that the defence had not
submitted any list of defence witnesses and all the defence witnesses
were produced on their own. The trial court took note of the fact that the
informant had completed her graduation in the year 2002 and her mental
condition was fit. The learned trial court also disbelieved and discarded
the evidences of D.W.-2 to D.W.-9 on the basis that they are interested
witnesses and their evidences are not believable. The learned trial court
also noted that most of them are hearsay witnesses and none of them
was issued any summons from the court. The learned trial court further
recorded that the defence has exhibited the reply dated 27.06.1998 sent
on behalf of Narendra Prasad to Sri Suresh Chandra Choudhary,
Advocate of the petitioner to the notice dated 16.05.1998 as Exhibit-B and
the legal notice dated 16.05.1998 sent by the petitioner to Narendra
Prasad as Exhibit-B/1.
Findings of the trial court
22. The learned trial court considered the arguments advanced on behalf
of the parties and summarized its findings in Paras-24 and 25 and
recorded that except P.W.-3, the rest prosecution witnesses, P.W.-1 to
P.W.-8, have supported the facts stated in the F.I.R. With regard to the
petitioner, the learned trial court recorded that Exhibit-1 is sufficient
with regard to the cruelty committed to the Informant and Exhibit-1/1 is
sufficient with regard to the demand of dowry made by the petitioner in
which there are evidences that the petitioner assaulted the Informant by
means of belt, called her mad and tortured her mentally and no cross-
examination has been made on behalf of the defence in relation to the
aforesaid letter and the said evidences remained unassailable. In the
Complaint filed in C-1 Case No.485/2002 (Exhibit-9), the petitioner has
alleged sexual activity and adultery against the father of the Informant
which is cruelty against the Informant and is indicative of distorted
mentality of the petitioner and is culmination of cruelty, whereas in the
reply to the legal notice, the petitioner has not stated anything regarding
the sexual activity of his father-in-law with the Informant. In Exhibit-B, it
is stated that if the petitioner would not torture the Informant, physically
or mentally, and would not demand dowry, the Informant is ready to
live with him. The petitioner burnt the private part of the Informant by
means of kachhuwa chhap agarbatti which has been supported by P.W.-
5 and P.W.-6 in their evidences and the argument advanced on behalf of
the defence that the Informant has not stated anything in this regard in
the F.I.R. and in her statement before the police is not acceptable.
The learned trial court further recorded that so far the mental condition
of the Informant is concerned, the order dated 19.05.2000 is sufficient in
which the court itself made conversation with the Informant on the
family matters and found her of sound mind. The petitioner has not filed
any application in court for issuance of summons to the private doctor
issuing the certificate for recording his evidence in defence for declaring
the Informant of unsound mind. The petitioner has also not filed any
treatment paper of the Informant received in the Railway Hospital. The
sanction order for prosecution under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act issued by the District Magistrate, East Singhbhum has been granted
against six accused persons which has been exhibited as Exhibit-5. The
accused persons in their defence have themselves produced all the
witnesses without issuance of notice and without submitting any list of
witnesses in court who are either their relatives or interested witnesses
and are witnesses in different cases and some accused persons have
given evidence with regard to the unsoundness of mind of the
Informant, whereas it is apparent from Exhibit-3/1 that the Informant
had graduated in the year 2002 from B.S.C.T. Mahila College, Ghatsila
and passed in second division and she received her education in the said
college from 1998 to 2001 which creates doubt over the document related
to her treatment by psychiatrist produced by the defence.
23. The learned trial court held that the prosecution has been able to
prove the charges against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts
and convicted the petitioner alongwith Ram Pyari Devi @ Ramdeiya
Devi, Muniya Devi @ Meena and Phulpati Devi @ Phulmati Devi under
Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, but did not hold them guilty under Section 109 of the
Indian Penal Code. The learned trial court convicted Vishwanath Singh
Yadav and Gopal Sharma under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code for
abetting the offences under Sections 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned trial court
sentenced the convicts accordingly and further directed the petitioner to
pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the Informant for the physical and
mental cruelty committed to her by the petitioner.
Findings of the Appellate Court.
24. The relevant findings of the appellate court are as under: -
Findings regarding documentary evidences/exhibits
a. The learned appellate court in Para-9 recorded that the documents
marked on behalf of the prosecution as Exhibits-1, 1/1, 2/1, 3/1, 4,
6, 1/a and 7 have been proved in accordance with law, but the rest
documents (i.e., Exhibits- 5, 8, 8/1, 9, 10, 11, 11/1, 11/2 and 11/3)
marked into exhibits have not been proved in the manner
prescribed under the provisions of Sections 67 to 73 of the Evidence
Act and accordingly, all findings based solely on those documents,
not properly proved, are illegal. However, no such specific finding
of the learned trial court was pointed out which could be said to
have been based solely on aforesaid exhibits. The learned appellate
court in Para-10 recorded that similarly, the documents filed by the
accused which have been marked as Exhibits-A to A/4 & B to B/1
have also not been properly proved by any of the defence
witnesses and discarded the documents of the defence marked as
exhibits except exhibit-A though not proved but its contents were
indirectly admitted by the informant(P.W-7) .Thus, as per appellate
court the documents which could be read into evidence were
Exhibits-1, 1/1, 2/1, 3/1, 4, 6, 1/a and 7 from the side of the
prosecution and exhibit-A though not proved but its contents were
indirectly admitted by the informant(P.W-7).
Finding regarding sanction for prosecution under Dowry
Prohibition Act.
b. So far as sanction for prosecution under Sections 3 & 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act i.e. exhibit -5 is concerned, it was held that
the same was not proved in accordance with law and accordingly
conviction under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was set-
aside against all the accused persons including the petitioner by
holding that the sanction for prosecution is non-existent rendering
the conviction under Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
for giving, taking or demanding the alleged dowry as illegal.
Findings regarding gifts given during marriage from the side of
the bride-informant.
c. In Para-13, the learned appellate court recorded that the allegation
and the case of prosecution in the written report is that the father
of the Informant in her marriage gave cash, ornaments, T.V.,
scooter, etc. in the form of "Tilak" (and not in the form of dowry)
and agreed with the submissions advanced on behalf of the
petitioner that 'Tilak' covers the articles given by way of gift to
bridegroom and his family members from the side of the bride and
there is no allegation that at or before marriage, the bride &
bridegroom parties negotiated & agreed solemnization of the
marriage fixing the said kind as the price of marriage. The learned
appellate court further recorded that P.W.-7 (Informant), P.W.-5
(mother of Informant) and P.W.-4 (brother of Informant) in their
evidence have also not deposed that before marriage, the price of
marriage was negotiated and it was agreed that said amount of
cash & articles would be the price of the marriage and P.W.-6
(father of Informant) has also not deposed about any such
negotiation prior to the marriage settling the price of the marriage
and he has simply deposed that in absence of said presents (or
Tilak), bridegroom would not have been ready & agreeable to
marry. It is not the specific case that giving of said kind and cash
was condition precedent for marriage which may legally be termed
as 'Dowry'. The learned appellate court further held that there is
neither any allegation, nor any evidence to show to prove the
ingredients of Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the
learned court below erred in law in counting the traditional
presents in the marriage or before the marriage in the form of
'Tilak' as the giving & taking of dowry in terms of Section 3 and
hence, the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section
3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was legally not sustainable and the
same was accordingly set aside. The learned appellate court also
observed in para 13 that the demand of dowry (motorcycle & cash)
also stands not proved and this aspect of the matter was to be
considered in subsequent paragraphs of the appellate court
judgement. It is relevant to note that demand of motor cycle and
Cash of Rs.40,000/- was alleged to have been made by the accused
after marriage.
d. The learned appellate court considered the allegations made in the
written report in para 14 and recorded at para 15 of the judgement
that a critical appreciation of the written report indicates the period
of stay of the informant at the house of her husband and that
duration of stay was not more than 3 to 4 months after marriage
which had admittedly taken place on 18.05.1994. The appellate
court also recorded that the informant, after being driven out by
the husband, had been residing at her father's house. In the light of
the allegations made in the written report, the evidences have been
examined from para 16 onwards in the appellate court's
judgement.
Finding regarding the date of ouster of the informant from the
house of the petitioner
e. The appellate court scrutinized the evidence of the informant (P.W.
7) and recorded that in paragraph 3 to 9, she has deposed about the
demand of motorcycle and cash and assault. The learned appellate
court in paragraph 16 itself recorded that the informant i.e. P.W. 7,
nowhere deposed that her mother-in-law and two Nanads ever
made any demand of dowry and considering the fact that the
informant was the best and sole-witness of the demand of dowry
and being a graduate, by no view of imagination it can be said that
it was just an omission. The learned appellate court recorded in
paragraph 17 that in para 8 of the evidence-in-chief, P.W. 7 has
given specific date i.e. 08.10.1994 when she was driven out from
her matrimonial house, but against this specific case in the written
report, she has made certain more allegations and stated that
finally on 07.08.1997, the petitioner assaulted her and kicked her
out of her house. The learned appellate court was of the view that
there was material addition in allegation over and above what was
mentioned in the written report drafted by a graduate girl - the
informant. The learned appellate court held that 08.10.1994 was the
true date on which the informant was ousted from the house of the
petitioner and 07.08.1997 being the date of ouster of the informant
from the house of the petitioner was seriously doubted by the
appellate court.
Finding regarding mental state of the informant
f. The appellate court considered the mental state of the informant
and recorded that the informant in paragraph 15 of her evidence
clearly deposed that her treatment continued for 15 to 16 days in a
private mental hospital at Ranchi and that she has further stated
that during her said mental treatment, her father and husband,
both were with her. In the light of the aforesaid statement made by
the informant in paragraph 15 of her evidence, the appellate court
appreciated Exhibit A which was a certificate from Davis Institute
of Neuropsychiatry, Kanke, Ranchi issued under the seal &
signature of Dr. P.K. Choudhary which though was not proved by
the doctor or any competent person, but was held to be admitted
by the informant in her evidence that she was treated at private
mental hospital at Ranchi. Accordingly, the appellate court was of
the view that the said certificate Exhibit-A though not proved, can
be used against the prosecution and this certificate indicated that
the informant was hospitalized w.e.f. 25.08.1994 to 04.09.1994 in
cottage ward of said Neuropsychiatry. It was also held that the
husband of the informant was all along with the informant in
course of her treatment at Ranchi. The learned appellate court also
recorded that the accused had filed medical prescriptions showing
purchase of medicines and that the expenses were borne by the
husband of the informant.
g. This court finds that on the one hand, the learned appellate court
doubted the evidence of the informant that she was finally ousted
from the house of her husband on 07.08.1997 on the ground that
this fact was not mentioned in the written report although the
informant was a graduate and on the other hand the appellate
court held at para 22 of the impugned judgement that the
informant was suffering from some mental ailment. It is important
to note that the learned trial court had rejected the plea of insanity
of the informant by referring to the order dated 19.05.2000 wherein
it has been recorded that upon conversation with the court the
informant was found to be mentally sound and the learned trial
court also considered the fact that no doctor was examined to
prove insanity of the informant.
Finding regarding allegation of torture regarding burning of
private part of the informant
h. So far as the allegation of torture regarding burning of her private
part by the petitioner is concerned, it has been held by the
appellate court to be an afterthought and not proved as the same
was never stated earlier and not even before the investigating
officer of the case under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The appellate court also considered that the informant
had stated that the injury was treated by a doctor, but neither any
medical prescription was filed nor the doctor who treated the
injury had been examined.
Finding regarding allegation of demand of Rs.40,000/- after
marriage for construction of house
i. The appellate court, vide paragraphs 24 and 25 of its judgement,
was of the view that the letter dated 29.06.1994 (Exhibit 1)
regarding demand of dowry and assault was never a part of the
case-diary and accordingly, was not produced before the
investigating officer and rejected the same by holding that it was
created much after, only to make the prosecution case strong.
Thereafter the appellate court went ahead and considered the
contents of Exhibit 1 and found that there was nothing in Exhibit- 1
against the mother-in-law and two sisters-in-law regarding any
demand of dowry or assault. The learned appellate court also
considered the allegations made against the petitioner -husband in
Exhibit-1 wherein it was alleged that the petitioner being the
husband, had once assaulted the informant by a belt for no reason
and recorded that it was not alleged that the husband assaulted her
by belt on account of the fact that she refused to put before her
father the demand of husband with regard to motorcycle and cash
of Rs. 40,000/- for construction of house, as alleged in the written
report. The appellate court, on the one hand, held that Exhibit 1
was a created document and simultaneously appreciated the
contents of Exhibit 1 to hold that the contents of Exhibit- 1 lead to
discredit the prosecution case of demand of Rs. 40,000/- for
construction of house. The appellate court found that the Exhibit 1
also contains the fact that the informant was sometimes addressed
as 'Pagli' (mad) and was of the view that such statement of address
appeared to be factually correct.
The appellate court, on the one hand, held Exhibit 1 as an
afterthought and, on the other hand, referred to Exhibit-1 itself to
record a finding that the contents of the letter do not support the
prosecution evidence of demand of Rs. 40,000/- for construction of
house and it does not speak about torture and assault on account of
non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. The appellate court, in para
30 of the judgement, also considered the evidence of the
investigating officer and rejected the allegation of demand of
Rs.40,000/- for construction of house by recording that there is no
evidence that the house of the petitioner was in delipidated
condition not fit for habitation or required construction of any
more room.
Thus, in totality, the allegation of demand of Rs.40,000/- after
marriage for construction of house was rejected by the learned
appellate court.
Finding regarding allegation of demand of motor-cycle after
marriage .
j. Vide paragraph 29, the learned appellate court considered the
demand of motorcycle after marriage and was of the view that in
support of demand of motor-cycle, Exhibit 1/1 was marked in the
evidence of P.W. 4. The learned appellate court held that upon
perusal of the Exhibit- 1/1, it appears that there is no demand of
motorcycle or any article rather Exhibit- 1/1 appears to have been
written in reply to return the scooter and this letter is dated
15.01.1995. In the said letter, it was mentioned that the scooter
would be returned to the father of the informant within a week and
the father of the informant may get it transferred in his name or in
the name of his son (P.W. 4). It is further not in dispute that the
said scooter was purchased in the name of the informant. The
appellate court recorded that from the contents of Exhibit- 1/1, it
was satisfied to find that the same was not a letter containing any
demand of cash or kind. The learned appellate court further
considered the evidence of the father of the informant - P.W. 6,
who in his evidence, had stated that the scooter was purchased
prior to marriage in the name of the informant and the said scooter
was returned by the petitioner husband in the year 1994 and was
again taken back by the petitioner who sold the scooter through
documents though the documents are in the name of the
informant.
k. The appellate court ultimately recorded its findings at paragraph
31 and 32 of the judgement as follows:
"31. After careful & legal appreciation of the prosecution evidences (oral
& documentary), in above paragraphs and findings arrived at this court is
absolutely satisfied to further find and hold (1) that the prosecution has
utterly failed in proving beyond shadow of reasonable doubt any of the
allegations of demand of dowry, taking of dowry, assault and/or torcher to
the informant by (a) the mother-in-law and (b) by two nanads of the
informant. Charge U/s 498A I.P.C. and charge U/Ss. 3 & 4 of the D.P.
also fails and stand not proved against (i) mother-in-law (Ram Pyari
Devi) of the informant and against (ii) two nanads of informant (Smt.
Phul-patti Devi & Smt. Meena Devi). The charge U/s. 4 of the D.P. Act
has also been held to have failed against all appellants due to sanction of
prosecution required being not proved & brought into evidence in the
manner required by law.
32. This court further holds that the prosecution has been able to prove the
allegation of subjecting the informant (wife) to cruelty by the husband
Durga Prasad (appellant no. 1). The informant (P.W. 7), P.W. no. 4, 5 &
6 have deposed supporting the evidence of one another that husband used
to assault the informant and in spite of several attempts as deposed by
almost all the PWs, he has not managed to keep & maintain his wife
(informant Jayanti) properly & has also not taken, since long, any step for
any treatment of her mental ailment. Undoubtedly omissions &
commissions alleged & proved against the appellant Durga Prasad are
sufficient for a deserted wife to commit any act dangerous to her life.
Hence, charge U/s. 498A of the I.P.C. stands proved. This court also holds
him guilty for the said charge. This court accordingly confirms the
conviction of appellant/convict Durga Prasad. The conviction & sentence
of Ram Pyari Devi, Smt. Phul-patti Devi & Smt. Meena Devi- awarded
by Ld. Court below stand set-aside. These three appellants are set-at
liberty. They are also discharged from the liability of their bail bond filed
in this case."
25. The appellate court in its penultimate findings at para 31 recorded
that the prosecution has utterly failed in proving beyond shadow of
reasonable doubt any of the allegations of demand of dowry, taking of
dowry, assault and/or torture to the informant by the family members of
the petitioner-husband and accordingly charge U/s 498(A) I.P.C. and
charge U/Ss. 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act failed and stood not
proved against the family members of the petitioner-husband. The only
finding at para 31 in favour of the petitioner is the acquittal of the
petitioner with all his family members under Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act due to sanction for prosecution having not been proved.
The appeal was partly allowed so far as the petitioner is concerned and
the conviction under Section 498(A) was upheld.
26. The appellate court at para 32 upheld the conviction of the petitioner
-husband under Section 498(A) of Indian Penal Code by holding that the
prosecution has been able to prove the allegation of subjecting the
informant to cruelty by the husband -petitioner. The informant (P.W. 7)
and P.W. Nos. 4, 5 & 6 have deposed supporting the evidence of one
another that husband used to assault the informant and in spite of
several attempts as deposed by almost all the PWs, he has not managed
to keep & maintain his wife (informant) properly & has also not taken,
since long, any step for any treatment of her mental ailment. The
appellate court held that undoubtedly omissions & commissions alleged
& proved against the petitioner-husband are sufficient for a deserted
wife to commit any act dangerous to her life.
27. As already discussed above, the appellate court refused to considered
a large number of documentary evidences filed by both the sides which
were held to be not proved. The appellate court also held that there was
attempt from the side of the prosecution to add/improve upon the
allegations made in the FIR and rejected such additional
allegations/evidences. This court finds that as per the finding of the
learned appellate court, the marriage was solemnized on 18.05.1994; the
informant was mentally unstable and was treated at the mental hospital
Ranchi from 25.08.1994 to 04.09.1994 and she was driven out of her
matrimonial home on or about 08.10.1994. The appellate court has also
recorded a finding that the items given during marriage i.e. T.V, scooter,
etc. were gifts voluntarily given at the time of marriage and were not a
result of any demand as dowry or as a condition precedent to marriage
and held that court below erred in law in treating the gifts at the time of
marriage as dowry and accordingly held that there is neither any
allegation nor any evidence to show and prove ingredients of section 3 of
Dowry Prohibition Act. So far as conviction under section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act is concerned, the appellate court has set aside the same
on the ground that the sanction was not proved in accordance with law.
The appellate court also rejected the allegation of burning of private
parts of the informant by the petitioner-husband. The appellate court
was of the view that allegations regarding post marriage demand of
Rs.40,000/- for construction of house could not be proved beyond all
reasonable doubts.
However, while considering the post marriage demand of motorcycle in
para 29 of the impugned judgement, the appellate court recorded that
the prosecution relied upon Exhibit 1/1 in support of the allegation of
demand of motor-cycle. The appellate court heavily relied upon Exhibit
1/1, which is a letter 15.01.1995 regarding return of the scooter, and
recorded that the same was not a letter containing any demand of cash or
kind and in the evidence of the father of the informant it has come that
the scooter was purchased prior to marriage. By relying upon Exhibit-
1/1, the appellate court held that the demand of motor-cycle after
marriage was also not proved. Upon perusal of the judgements passed
by the learned courts below and also the records of the case, this Court
finds that Exhibit-1/1 had nothing to do with demand of motor-cycle
and it relates to return of scooter. It is not in dispute that a scooter, which
was purchased prior to marriage, was given as gift at the time of
marriage which was sought to be returned vide Exhibit 1/1. The
demand of motor cycle after marriage and torture of the informant upon
non fulfillment of the demand of motorcycle has been fully supported by
the informant (P.W.-7) as well as other prosecution witnesses except
P.W-3 and the independent witness P.W-1, in para 10 of his deposition,
has also mentioned in support of the cruelty meted out to the informant
that he had seen her swollen cheeks and that there were efforts to settle
the matter between the parties. Specific discussions have been made in
para 9 and 10 of the trial court's judgement as already mentioned above.
This Court finds that in the F.I.R., it was interalia alleged that after
marriage the informant was asked by the petitioner to put demand of
one Hero-Honda Motorcycle, but she refused to put the said demand for
which she was subjected to cruelty by way of assault and torture and
drove out of her matrimonial house. P.W.-7 is the Informant herself who
has clearly deposed that after one month of marriage, the petitioner
started misbehaving with her and interalia, demanded one Hero Honda
Motorcycle to bring from her father and on expressing inability of her
father to fulfill the demand, the petitioner assaulted her and she was
kept hungry for several days and then on 08.10.1994, the petitioner and
her mother-in-law drove her out from her matrimonial house. P.W.-1 has
interalia corroborated the evidence of the informant (P.W-7) on the point
of assault, torture and demand of Hero Honda Motorcycle after marriage
and had seen the swollen cheek of the Informant. P.W-2 has also
corroborated the aforesaid evidence of the informant (P.W-7) and also
stated that informant was also denied food. P.W-4, brother of the
informant, has also corroborated the aforesaid evidence of the informant
(P.W-7) and has also stated that the petitioner had assaulted the
Informant by means of belt. P.W.-5, mother of Informant, and P.W.-6,
father of Informant, have also corroborated the aforesaid evidence of the
informant (P.W-7). P.W.-8, has also stated that the informant was
assaulted and tortured in her matrimonial home, the Informant had told
him that she was being assaulted by belt on her whole body and was not
provided food and she had also told him that she was interalia, asked to
put demand of one Hero Honda Motorcycle to her father. P.W.-9,
Investigating Officer, has also deposed that P.W.-8 had stated that the
petitioner used to assault the Informant and drove her out. The oral
evidences in support of the allegation of demand of motor cycle after
marriage has not been considered by the learned appellate court and the
evidence regarding scooter given at the time of marriage has been mixed
up with the independent allegation regarding post marriage demand of
motor-cycle by the petitioner. This court finds that there are sufficient
and cogent evidences on record with respect of demand of motor-cycle
and torture of the informant on account of non-fulfillment of such
demand.
28. Thus, the trial court fully believed the prosecution story and upheld
the allegation of demand of dowry/property but the appellate court
totally discarded the allegation of demand of dowry/property. Both the
learned courts below upheld the allegation of torture and assault of the
informant at the hand of the petitioner. However, the appellate court
disbelieved the allegation of burning of private parts of the informant by
the petitioner but in spite of that the learned appellate court held that
undoubtedly omissions & commissions alleged & proved against the
petitioner-husband are sufficient for a deserted wife to commit any act
dangerous to her life and upheld his conviction under section 498(A) of
IPC. The trial court did not specifically mention as to whether it was
convicting the accused including petitioner under clause (a) or clause (b)
of explanation to Section 498A of IPC or both, but the appellate court
while upholding the conviction of the petitioner under section 498 (A) of
IPC clearly referred to the element of cruelty as mentioned in clause (a)
of explanation to section 498(A) IPC and the element of cruelty as
mentioned in clause (b) of explanation to section 498(A) IPC stood
disbelieved as the allegation of any demand of dowry/property was
rejected by the appellate court.
29. Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:
498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty--Whoever, being the husband or the
relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to
cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this section, "cruelty"
means--
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to
drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of
the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a
view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is
on account of failure by her or any person related to her to
meet such demand.
30. The elements of cruelty so far as clause (a) is concerned, are as
follows:
(i) any "wilful" conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to
drive the woman to commit suicide; or
(ii) any "wilful" conduct which is likely to cause grave injury to the
woman; or
(iii) any "wilful" act which is likely to cause danger to life, limb or
health, whether physical or mental of the woman.
31. The trial court convicted the petitioner interalia, under section 498(A)
of IPC by holding that the cruelty meted out to the informant by the
accused including petitioner husband was on account of unlawful
demand for dowry/property and failure by the informant/her family
members to meet such demand.
32. The appellate court upheld the conviction of the petitioner under
section 498(A) of IPC upon consideration of cruelty as defined under
clause (a) of explanation to section 498(A) IPC by holding that the cruelty
meted out to the informant by the petitioner husband was sufficient for a
deserted wife to commit any act dangerous to her life. The learned
appellate court disbelieved the allegations levelled against the petitioner
with regard to allegations of cruelty to the Informant to meet any
unlawful demand of any property and non-fulfillment thereof. This
court finds that there is specific evidence of the informant (P.W-7) at para
5 of her evidence and also mentioned in the trial court's judgement that
the informant was kept without food for days together during her stay at
her matrimonial house and it has also come in evidence that she was also
assaulted all over her body using belt. This court is of the considered
view that the nature of cruelty upon the informant was sufficient to
cause grave danger to her life and was certainly sufficient for a deserted
wife to commit any act dangerous to her life. This Court is of the
considered view that the appellate court concerned does not appear to
have committed any illegality or material irregularity or impropriety in
holding that the cruelty meted out to the informant by the petitioner
husband was sufficient for a deserted wife to commit any act dangerous
to her life. On the aforesaid point the impugned order is apparently
presentable and there is no failure of justice calling for any interference
in favour of the petitioner in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
33. The arguments of the petitioner on Section 313 Cr.P.C is required to
be considered. On 01.09.2005, the statements of the petitioner were
recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein the petitioner denied the
incriminating evidences put to him and stated that the allegations are
false and he claimed to be innocent. Upon perusal of the questions put to
the petitioner under section 313 of Cr.P.C., this Court finds that the
petitioner claims to have heard evidences of all the witnesses. Specific
questions were put to him regarding physical and mental torture of the
informant during her stay in the matrimonial house to which he denied.
Specific question was put to him regarding demand of Rs.40,000/- and
Hero Honda motorcycle after marriage during her stay in matrimonial
house to which he denied. Specific question was also put to the
petitioner regarding demand of dowry at the time of marriage to the
extent of Rs.80,000/- cash, jewellery worth Rs.40,000/-, T.V, scooter etc.,
which was also denied by the petitioner. Question was also put to him
that he on one hand tortured the informant during her stay at her
matrimonial home and also instigated others to torture, to which the
petitioner denied. The petitioner refused to furnish any explanation and
simply stated that he was innocent in connection with the allegations
although he was extended an opportunity to say something in his
defence. This court finds that essential questions in relation to torture of
the informant during her stay in matrimonial house as well as demand of
dowry at the time of wedding and demand of Rs.40,000/- and Hero
Honda motorcycle after marriage during her stay in matrimonial house
have been put to the petitioner during his examination under section 313
of Cr.P.C. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
essential questions/facts/circumstances were not put to the petitioner
during his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C which was the reason
for upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Section 498(A) of
IPC by the appellate court, is devoid of any merits, hence rejected.
34. In the judgement reported in (2003) 2 SCC 401(supra) at para-10 it has
been held that the law of evidence does not require any particular
number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact. However,
faced with the testimony of a single witness, the court may classify the
oral testimony into three categories, namely, (i) wholly reliable, (ii)
wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the first two categories there
may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the
single witnesses and the difficulty arises in the third category of cases. It
was held that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for
corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or
circumstantial, before acting upon the testimony of the single witness.
The Hon'ble Supreme court was of the view in the facts of the said case
that it was difficult, almost impossible, to sift the grains of truth from out
of the mass of chaff of falsehood and exaggerations and allowed the
appeal.
This Court is of the considered view that the aforesaid judgment does
not help the petitioner in any manner in view of the fact that the trial
court found the evidence of the witnesses including the victim as wholly
reliable and the appellate court found some additions in the evidence of
the witnesses and such additional allegations were segregated as
unreliable and benefit was given to the accused.
35. The Hon'ble Apex Court has explained the power of revisional court
in the case of "Jagannath Choudhary and others Vs. Ramayan Singh and
Another" reported in (2002) 5 SCC 659 at para. 9 as under: -
"9.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 applicant 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."
36. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings and considering the
scope of the revisional jurisdiction, this court is not inclined to interfere
with the impugned judgement of conviction of the petitioner under
section 498(A) of Indian Penal Code and accordingly the present revision
petition is dismissed.
37. The bail bond furnished by the petitioner is hereby cancelled.
38. The office is directed to send back the Lower Court Records to the
court concerned.
39. Let a copy of this Judgement be communicated to the court
concerned through 'FAX /email'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/Pankaj
