Jharkhand High Court
Pradeep Kumar Mahato vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 June, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 383 of 2012
1. Pradeep Kumar Mahato, son of Radhu Mahato
2. Radhu Mahato, son of Late Jhabu Mahato
3. Malti Devi, wife of Radhu Mahato,
All resident of Village - Nizkazra, P.O. - Patajori, P.S. -
Karmatanr, District- Jamtara ... ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Bishakha Devi, w/o Pradeep Kr. Mahato, D/o Bhola Pd.
Mahato, at present R/o Village - Nizkajra, P.O. - Pattajori, P.S.
- Karmatanr, District- Jamtara ... Opp. Parties
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Nityanand Prasad Choudhary,
Advocate
For the Opp. Party- State : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Advocate
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
CAV on 05.04.2021 Pronounced on 04/06/2021
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Nityanand Prasad Choudhary, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners.
2. Heard Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the opposite party-State.
3. This criminal revision application is filed against the judgment
dated 12.04.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara in
Criminal Appeal No.06/2012, by which learned Sessions Judge has
dismissed the appeal and confirmed the sentence passed by learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamtara on 21.12.2011 in P.C.R. Case
No.254/2000 and T.R. No.96/2011 whereby the petitioners have been
found guilty for offence under Sections 498A/323 of the Indian Penal
Code.
The petitioners were convicted for the offence under Section
498-A of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-
each. In default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo
simple imprisonment for the period of 15 days. They were further
awarded sentence to undergo simple imprisonment of 6 months for
the offence under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code. Both the
sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Arguments on behalf of the Petitioners
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner
no.1 is the husband of the complainant, petitioner no.2 is the father-
in-law and petitioner no.3 is the mother-in-law of the complainant.
He further submits that the present age of the petitioner no.2 is more
than 70 years and that of petitioner no.3 is more than 65 years. He
also submits that so far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, his present
age is more than 50 years.
5. Learned counsel submits that as per the complaint, marriage
had taken place on 21.06.1994 and after six months, the complainant
was thrown out of the matrimonial house, but she has filed the
criminal case in the year 2000. Learned counsel submits that although
there are consistent findings recorded by the learned courts below,
but considering the age of the petitioner nos. 2 and 3, the sentence
may be modified. He further submits that so far as the petitioner No.1
i.e. husband is concerned, since more than 20 years have already
elapsed from the date of filing of the complaint case therefore, for him
also, some modification of sentence may be granted. The learned
court below has imposed maximum sentence of 3 years for offence
under Section 498-A and Section 323 of Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). The learned counsel submits that so
far as Section 498-A IPC is concerned, the punishment has been given
to the extent of 3 years and under Section 323 IPC punishment of six
months has been given. He also submits that a fine of Rs.1,000/- has
also been imposed for offence under Section 498-A of IPC.
6. Learned counsel further submits that during the pendency of
the present revision application, the petitioners had surrendered
before the learned court below on 11.05.2012 and were directed to be
released on bail vide order dated 04.06.2012 and a few days must
have been taken to furnish bail bonds and accordingly, the custody
of the petitioners in connection with the present case is about one
month.
7. From perusal of the records of this case, it appears that the bail
bonds were furnished before the learned court below on 18.06.2012
which was accepted on 19.06.2012.
Arguments on behalf of the opposite party - State
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party -
State while opposing the aforesaid prayer has submitted that there
being consistent findings recorded by the learned courts below, no
interference is called for so far as the conviction is concerned, but so
far as the modification of sentence is concerned, he submits that the
same is up to the Court to pass an appropriate order. He further
submits that in case, this Court modifies the sentence, then the fine
amount may be enhanced appropriately.
Findings of this Court
9. The brief fact of the case is that the complainant was married
with the Pradeep Kumar Mahato (Petitioner No.1) on 21.06.1994 as
per Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged that at the time of marriage,
father of the complainant paid Rs. 9,000/- in cash along with other
ornaments and things to the petitioners. After marriage, the
complainant went to sasural and started living there happily. It is
alleged that after some time, the present petitioners started
demanding a cycle and a cow from the father of the complainant.
When the father of the complainant could not fulfil their demand,
they stopped serving meal to the complainant and on 17.10.1995,
complainant was ousted from their house. Thereafter, a case under
Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code was filed by the complainant
against the accused persons before police and on the advice of the
well-wishers, the said case was compromised on 13.11.1995. The
husband, present petitioner no. 1, was not an accused in the earlier
case.
10. It is also alleged that after sometime, all the accused persons of
the complaint petition started demanding cycle, cow and cash of
Rs.5,000/- from the father of the complainant and the father of the
complainant along with the witnesses named in the complaint
petition went there and stated that he was not in a condition to fulfil
their demand. The accused persons got annoyed, assaulted and
ousted the complainant after snatching her belongings. Since then,
the complainant had been living in the house of her father. It is
alleged that on 23.07.2000 when the complainant along with the listed
witnesses came to the house of the accused persons to negotiate the
matter, the accused persons became rigid and did not allow them to
enter unless their demand was fulfilled and they further told that the
husband of the complainant (petitioner no.1) would get remarried.
11. On 22.02.2001, a prima facie case was found against the accused
persons named in the complaint petition for the offence under
Sections 498-A / 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, charge was
framed for the offence under Sections 498-A/323 of the Indian Penal
Code and the same was explained to them in Hindi to which they did
not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. On 16.06.2011, statements of
the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C
wherein they pleaded innocent and declined to produce any defence
evidence.
12. There were five witnesses examined on behalf of the
complainant. C.W. 1 is Bhola Pd. Mahato (father of the complainant),
C.W. 2 is Sudhir Mahto (independent witness), C.W. 3 is Satish
Mahto, (brother-in-law of the complainant), C.W.4 is Puran Mahto,
(uncle of the complainant) and C.W. 5 is Bishakha Devi
(complainant).
13. C.W. 1 in his examination-in-chief has stated that his daughter
Bishakha was married with Pradip on 21.06.1994 as per Hindu
customs and rituals and he had given cash of Rs.9,000/-, utensils and
silver ornaments in the marriage. After the marriage of his daughter,
she went to sasural. They kept her well up to 6 months, later on
stopped her food. They started to assault and told her to bring cycle,
wrist watch and cow. He has further stated that when she was driven
out from her in-laws' house, then she lodged a case before
Superintendent of Police and thereafter, Panchayati was held for
compromise and the case was compromised. Bail was granted on the
basis of compromise. A panchnama paper was prepared. Thereafter,
the complainant went to sasural and again they started assaulting her.
He has further stated that when the husband of the complainant went
outside for job, the complainant came to her parental house and when
the husband returned back on 23.07.2000, he took the complainant
with her along with five persons, but they did not allow her to enter
the house of her sasural and told her to give Rs.5,000/-, cow and cycle,
otherwise the husband of her daughter will marry another girl.
Hence, the complainant lodged this case. Later on, this witness came
to know that the husband (petitioner no.1) was married with another
girl in a temple. At the time of evidence, accused Radhu (petitioner
no.2) and Malti (petitioner no.3) were present. In his cross-
examination, this witness has deposed that in the previous police
case, the husband of the complainant was not made accused. He has
further deposed that the previous case was compromised and the
accused persons kept his daughter 1 - 2 months in good condition
and they again started committing cruelty on her. Six persons were
acquitted in that case and his daughter is getting Rs.250/- per month
as maintenance and she has filed a case under Section 494 of the
Indian Penal Code and Radhu Mahto (Petitioner no.2) has not given
½ share to the husband of the complainant. Radhu Mahto (Petitioner
no.2) had filed a false case against him under Section 107 of Cr.P.C.
14. C.W. 2 has deposed that the victim girl never remained in her
Maika along with her husband. He has deposed that he did not know
on what ground the earlier case was compromised. C.W. 3 has
deposed that the complainant had compromised a case under Section
498-A of the Indian Penal Code. He has further deposed that the
complainant remained in her sasural 6-7 years and there was demand
of one cycle and cow and the demand was made in his presence in
the year 2000. C.W. 4 has deposed that the husband (petitioner no.1)
remained in the house of the complainant for six months after the
marriage. She has remained 3 years in her sasural. This witness has
admitted that the complainant is getting Rs.250/- as maintenance.
15. C.W. 5 is the complainant herself and she has supported the
prosecution story in her examination-in-chief. The complainant was
examined on 29.05.2009. She has clearly stated that she was married
to Pradeep Kumar Mahato (petitioner no. 1) 15 years back as per
Hindu Rights and Rituals and that she has filed the case against her
husband (Pradeep Kumar Mahato), father-in-law (Radhu Mahato)
and mother-in-law (Malti Devi). She has further stated that at the
time of marriage Rs. 9,000/- with utensils, jewellery etc. were given
and for six months, she was remained in her matrimonial house and
thereafter, there was a demand of one cow and Rs. 5,000/- by all the
three co-accused and when her father did not satisfy the demand, she
was assaulted by all the three accused and she was also not provided
food. She has also stated that initially one case was filed before the
police station and ultimately the said case was compromised and she
was taken back to the matrimonial house. After 5-6 months, her
husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law again started assaulting
her on trivial issues and did not provide food. They demanded one
cow, cycle and Rs. 5,000/- and once the said demand was not met,
she was assaulted and thrown out from the matrimonial house and
her belongings were also snatched and thereafter she was residing in
the house of her father. She has stated that five persons had come to
take her back to her matrimonial house, but still accused assaulted
and threw her out of the matrimonial house and during the pendency
of the case, the husband has solemnized second marriage. She has
also stated that she has filed one maintenance case against her
husband and has been granted maintenance to the extent of Rs. 250/-
. She has also stated that earlier case filed by her was closed. In the
earlier case, there were altogether six accused and in the present case,
there are only three accused including the husband.
In her cross-examination, she had deposed that in the police case her
husband was a witness from her side and that case was
compromised. Thereafter, she remained in her sasural for 1 to 1 ½
months and the accused persons assaulted her and ousted her from
the house. They also demanded Rs.5,000/-, a cow and a cycle, but she
did not know the exact date of demand. She has further deposed that
she was living in her father's house for the last 10-11 years and 4 years
back, she has filed a case for maintenance and getting Rs.250/- per
month.
16. Exhibit-1 is the order dated 13.11.1995 which is a surrender-
cum-bail petition along with the joint compromise petition on behalf
of the accused of the earlier case filed under Section 498-A which
ended into a compromise.
Exhibit-2 is the order taking cognizance dated 07.08.2007 passed in
P.C.R. Case No. 139/2007 which is a case filed by the complainant of
the present case in which cognizance has been taken for offence
under Sections 494, 323 and 504 of IPC against nine accused persons.
17. The learned trial court after perusing the materials available on
record and the depositions of the witnesses, convicted the petitioners
under Sections 498-A/323 of Indian Penal Code. The learned trial
court recorded as follows:
"14. Heard both sides, perused the case record, materials
available with the record and the depositions of the witnesses,
I find that it is an admitted fact that before the institution of
this case, a police case was filed by the complainant against
the family members of the her shashural except the husband
and in this case, she has made 3 persons accused, her
husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law. C.W. 1 is the
father of the complainant, C.W.2 is an independent witness,
C.W.3 is Jija of the complainant, C.W. 4 is the uncle of the
complainant and C.W.5 is the complainant itself. All the
witnesses have deposed regarding the demand of dowry.
C.W.1 at para 1, C.W.2 at Para 3, C.W.3 at para 2, C.W.4 at
para 2 and C.W.5 at para 1 fully specifically deposed
regarding the demand of dowry. There is no material
contradiction amongst the depositions of C.W.s. And all the
witnesses have not deposed anything in their cross-
examination, so that regarding this fact, that no cruelty was
made nor dowry was demanded. All the witnesses have been
fully consistent at the point of the demand of dowry and
subject to cruelty.
15. Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid discussions, I find
that complainant has been able to prove the accused persons
guilty for the charges levelled against them beyond all the
reasonable doubts. They are found guilty for the offence u/s
498 (A) / 323 of I.P.C......."
18. The learned appellate court after considering the materials on
record found that the prosecution witnesses have fully supported the
prosecution case and not even any suggestion was put forth from the
side of the defence of the prosecution witnesses during their cross-
examination to create any doubt in the mind of the court regarding
demand of dowry and regarding the incident of torture of the victim
pursuant to such demand of dowry. The learned appellate court also
found that there are consistent evidences of the prosecution
witnesses that the accused used to demand a cycle, a cow and
Rs.5,000/- cash and assaulted the victim lady on account of non-
fulfilment of the demand and ultimately the complainant was driven
out of her matrimonial house, due to which, she was forced to live
with her parents for more than 10 years. The learned appellate court
did not find any error in the judgment passed by the learned trial
court and accordingly upheld the judgment and conviction of the
petitioners under Sections 498-A /323 of Indian Penal Code.
19. From the records of the case, it is apparent that the prosecution
has been able to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt that the
accused persons started demanding cycle, one cow and cash of Rs.
5,000/- from the complainant which her father was not in a position
to fulfil the demand and the accused assaulted the complainant and
ousted her from the matrimonial house.
20. The Hon'ble Apex Court has explained the power of 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."
21. The revisional power is further explained in the case of Ramesh
Kumar Bajaj reported in (2009) 1 JCR 684 (Jhar) at para. 13 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."
22. In view of the aforesaid discussions and findings and
considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this Court
is of the considered view that the learned courts below have passed
well-reasoned judgements considering every aspect of the matter and
every argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners. There being
no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgements of conviction,
no interference is called for.
On the point of Sentence
23. However, so far as the sentence is concerned, this Court finds
that it is not in dispute that the present offence is the first offence of
the petitioners and the complaint case was filed as back as in the year
2000 and as of now more than 20 years have elapsed from the date of
filing of the complaint case. This Court further finds that the learned
court below has given maximum punishment to all the petitioners.
Further, at present the petitioner no.2 is more than 70 years of age;
petitioner no.3 is more than 65 years of age and the petitioner no.1 is
more than 50 years of age. This Court also finds that the petitioner
and 2 and 3 have faced rigors of criminal case for almost 21 years
though they have remained in custody for a period from 11.05.2012
to 19.06.2012 i.e., slightly more than 1 month.
24. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case,
this Court finds that ends of justice would be served if the sentence
is modified for the petitioner no.2 and petitioner no.3 to the period
of custody already undergone by them in judicial custody with fine
of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) each. Accordingly, the
sentence of the petitioner no.2 and petitioner no.3 is confined to the
period of custody which they have already undergone in jail in
connection with the present case with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each.
The aforesaid amount is directed to be deposited by each of the
petitioner no. 2 and 3 within a period of 2 (two) months from the date
of communication of this order to the learned court below. The fine
amount, so deposited, by each of the petitioners is directed be
remitted to the account of the opposite party No.-2 after due
identification and upon furnishing of the details of the bank account
of the opposite party No.-2. If the aforesaid fine amount is not
deposited within the stipulated timeframe, the bail bonds furnished
by the petitioner no.2 and petitioner no.3 will be immediately
cancelled by the learned court below and the they would undergo the
punishment already imposed by the learned court below.
25. So far as the petitioner no. 1, husband is concerned, from the
records of the case, it appears that although the mother-in-law and
father-in-law of the complainant i.e petitioner no. 2 and 3,
surrendered before the learned court below on 24.07.2001 and were
enlarged on bail on the same day, but bailable warrant of arrest was
issued against the husband i.e. Pradeep Kumar Mahato vide order
dated 02.08.2001 and non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued vide
order dated 19.04.2003 and thereafter process under Section 83 of the
Cr.P.C. was issued against him vide order dated 24.01.2005 and was
he ultimately declared absconder vide order dated 09.03.2005.
Consequently, the trial of the other two co-accused and husband was
separated. However, subsequently the trial was amalgamated vide
order dated 30.09.2008 and the petitioner no. 1 was granted bail by
the learned District & Sessions Judge in B.P. No. 179/2008. In view of
the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court is not inclined to take
any sympathetic view in favour of the petitioner no. 1, husband on
the point of sentence.
26. The bail bond furnished by the petitioner no.1 is hereby
cancelled.
27. This revision petition is hereby disposed of with the aforesaid
modification of sentence of petitioner no. 2 and 3 and no interference
is called for so far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned.
28. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are closed.
29. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the court
concerned.
30. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court
below through 'E-mail/FAX'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/
