Jharkhand High Court
Ashok Kumar Mahto Son Of Sri ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 873 of 2012
Ashok Kumar Mahto son of Sri Sukhlal Mahto resident of
Village & P.O. Jainamore P.S. Jaridih Dist. Bokaro
... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
With
Cr. Rev. No. 875 of 2012
Raj Kumar Mahto son of Sri Sukhlal Mahto resident of Village
& P.O. Jainamore P.S. Jaridih Dist. Bokaro
... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
With
Cr. Rev. No. 1039 of 2012
Sukhlal Mahto son of Late Jai Ram Mahto resident of Village &
P.O. Jainamore P.S. Jaridih Dist. Bokaro
... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
With
Cr. Rev. No. 1049 of 2012
Udasi Mahtain wife of Sri Sukhlal Mahto resident of Village &
P.O. Jainamore P.S. Jaridih Dist. Bokaro
... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
With
Cr. Rev. No. 86 of 2013
Bishwanath Mahto son of Sri Sukhlal Mahto resident of Village
& P.O. Jainamore P.S. Jaridih Dist. Bokaro
... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner (s) : Mr. N.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P.
(In Cr. Rev. No. 873 of 2012)
Mr. Shekhar Sinha, A.P.P.
(In Cr. Rev. No. 875 of 2012)
Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, A.P.P.
2
(In Cr. Rev. No. 1039 of 2012)
Mr. Tapas Roy, A.P.P.
(In Cr. Rev. No. 1049 of 2012)
Md. Hatim, A.P.P.
(In Cr. Rev. No. 86 of 2013)
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 05.04.2021 Pronounced on 04.06.2021
1. Heard Mr. N.K. Sahani, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners in all the cases.
2. Heard Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Mr.
Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, Mr. Tapas Roy and Md. Hatim, the
learned counsels appearing on behalf of the State in the
respective criminal revision petitions.
3. All the criminal revision petitions are directed against the
Judgment dated 18.09.2010 passed by the learned 1st Additional
Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No. 71/2007
whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court upheld
the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence of the
petitioners for the offences under Section 498(A) of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act passed
by the learned trial court and dismissed the criminal appeal.
4. The petitioners had preferred the criminal appeal against
the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence
dated 21.06.2007 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Bokaro in C.P. Case No. 344 of 2000 whereby and
whereunder the petitioners were held guilty and convicted for
the offences under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
5. The learned trial court sentenced the petitioner-Raj
Kumar Mahto (husband of Complainant) to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for 03 Years for the offence under Section 498(A)
of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced Sukhlal Mahto and Udasi
Mahtain (father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the
Complainant) to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 Years
for the offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced Ashok Kumar Mahto and Bishwanath Mahto
(both Brother-in-law of Complainant) to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for 01 Year for the offence under Section 498(A)
of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial court further
sentenced all the petitioners to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for 06 months for the offence under Section 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned trial court directed that
both the sentences shall run concurrently and the detentions of
the petitioners in custody shall be set off from the period of
imprisonment. However, the learned trial court acquitted Sister
-in -law of the Complainant giving benefit of doubt to her.
Arguments on behalf of the petitioners
6. Leaned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Ashok
Kumar Mahto and Bishwanath Mahto are the brothers-in-law,
Udasi Mahtain and Sukhlal Mahto are the mother-in-law and
father-in-law respectively and Raj Kumar Mahto is the husband
of the Complainant. The learned counsel submitted that
although the respective ages of the petitioners are not
mentioned in the impugned judgments, but their age is
reflected from their statements recorded under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. In the month of January, 2005, when the statements of
the mother-in-law and father-in-law were recorded, they were
48 years and 54 years of age respectively and accordingly, their
present age is 64 years and 70 years respectively. The learned
counsel further submitted that so far as the brothers-in-law and
mother-in-law are concerned, there are no specific allegations
against them.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted
that the petitioner-Ashok Kumar Mahto has remained in
custody since 13.09.2012 to 12.11.2012 (02 months), Raj Kumar
Mahto has remained in custody since 13.09.2012 to 11.12.2012
(03 months), Sukhlal Mahto has remained in custody since
28.01.2013 to 31.01.2013 (04 days), Udasi Mahtain has remained
in custody since 04.02.2013 to 07.02.2013 (04 days) and
Bishwanath Mahto has remained in custody since 28.01.2013 to
22.02.2013 (26 days).
8. However, during the course of argument, the learned
counsel for the petitioners did not dispute that the minimum
sentence for offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act
is 06 months. It also transpired during the course of hearing
that the Complainant of the case has already expired and this
fact is recorded in the appellate court's judgment.
Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State
9. Learned counsels appearing for the Opposite Party-State
opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and
submitted that there are serious allegations against the
petitioners with regard to assaulting and abusing the
Complainant for non-fulfillment of the demand of scooter and
Rs.15,000/-. They further submitted that there are specific
evidences against the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-
law.
10. Learned counsels further submitted that the evidence of
P.W.-4, who was the Complainant of the case, clearly indicates
that there was demand of dowry and torture by all the
petitioners and both the learned courts below have recorded
this aspect of the matter. They further submitted that the scope
of interference in revisional jurisdiction is very limited and in
view of the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the learned
courts below, no interference is called for.
Findings of this Court
11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
going through the impugned judgments and the lower court
records of the case, this Court finds that the prosecution case is
based on a Complaint Petition being C.P. Case No. 344 of 2000
presented on 08.11.2000 by the Complainant (P.W.-4) namely,
Mamta Devi in the court of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bokaro at Chas alleging inter-alia that her marriage
was solemnized with Raj Kumar Mahto on 28.04.1998 according
to Hindu rites and customs and after the marriage, she went to
her matrimonial home and lived there peacefully for about two
months only. Thereafter, the petitioners as well as sister-in-law
of the Complainant demanded Rs. 15,000/- in cash and one
Scooter as dowry. It was further alleged that when the brother
of the Complainant went to her matrimonial home on the
occasion of Durga Puja to bring the Complainant, the
petitioners as well as sister-in-law demanded the Scooter and
the amount from him and they gave bidai of the Complainant
saying that if the Complainant will not bring the vehicle and
money, they will not allow her to live in their house. It was
further alleged that in the month of Magh, 1999, the brother of
the Complainant took her to her matrimonial house and gave a
sum of Rs. 5,000/- with undertaking that he would manage the
remaining amount and the vehicle. However, the petitioners
allowed the Complainant to live at her matrimonial house. It
was further alleged that the petitioners again tortured the
Complainant, mentally and physically, on various ways, but the
Complainant continued to live there tolerating the tortures. On
05.07.1999, the petitioners assaulted the Complainant seriously
and the husband took the Complainant to her father's house
and told her father that unless the vehicle and the remaining
amount of Rs. 10,000/- would be given, he would not take back
the Complainant. It was further alleged that after Durga Puja,
the brother of the Complainant took back the Complainant to
her matrimonial home and again paid Rs. 5,000/- to her
husband with an undertaking that the remaining amount
would be provided till March, 2000. But after sometime, the
petitioners again tortured and assaulted the Complainant in
various ways. It was further alleged that the father-in-law of the
Complainant, who is a BSL employee, after taking liquor, used
to assault and abuse her in filthy language. The petitioners did
not provide food to her and the mother-in-law and brothers-in-
law always threatened her that they would solemnize second
marriage of the husband with another girl where they will get
sufficient dowry, etc. It was further alleged that on 31.10.2000,
the petitioners as well as sister-in-law brutally assaulted the
Complainant and the mother-in-law and sister-in-law snatched
away all her gold ornaments and confined her in a room and
also threatened her to set fire after pouring kerosene oil on her
body. On 01.11.2000, the mother-in-law and sister-in-law
opened the door and pulled her hair and brought her from the
room. Thereafter, the petitioners assaulted her. The husband of
the complainant took her to her father's house and also abused
her and her father, brother and mother in filthy language and
told them that if they would again send back the Complainant
to his house without the aforesaid dowry, he would kill her and
throw the dead body elsewhere.
12. After conclusion of enquiry, on 31.03.2001, a prima-facie
case was found under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the
petitioners and Radhi Devi and thereafter, summons was
issued to them. After appearance of the accused persons, the
evidence before charge was recorded.
13. On 10.09.2003, the charges under Section 498(A) of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
were framed against the petitioners and Radhi Devi which were
read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
14. In course of trial, altogether 04 witnesses were examined
on behalf of the Complainant in support of her case. P.W.-1
Rajesh Kumar Prajapati is the brother of the Complainant, P.W.-
2 , Bhagwat Mahato is an independent witness, P.W.-3 , Tanu
Ram Mahato is the father of the Complainant and P.W.-4,
Mamta Devi who is the Complainant herself (now deceased).
The Complainant exhibited the certified copy of charge-sheet in
G.R. Case No.1364/2000 as Exhibit-1 which was filed by the
complainant under Sections 448/324/307/34 of Indian Penal
Code on 31.12.2000 against her husband, Bishwanath Mahto
(brother-in-law) and another as well as certified copy of
judgment in Title Suit (Matrimonial) No.38/2000 as Exhibit-2,
which has been dismissed.
15. On 20.01.2005, the statements of the petitioners and Radhi
Devi were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they
denied the incriminating evidences put to them and claimed to
be innocent. Ashok Kumar Mahto, Raj Kumar Mahto and
Bishwanath Mahto said that the Complainant wanted to kill
them by administering poison to them. Two witnesses were
examined on behalf of the petitioners and Radhi Devi in their
defence. D.W.-1 is Sarbeshwar Mahato and D.W.-2 is Ashok
Kumar. The petitioners exhibited the letters written by the
Complainant as Exhibits- A to E, Signature of Doctor in Medical
Book as Exhibit-F and the Summons in Title Suit (Matrimonial)
No.38/2000 as Exhibit-G.
16. This Court finds that the learned trial court considered
the oral and documentary evidences adduced on behalf of the
parties and also considered the arguments advanced on behalf
of the parties and recorded its findings at Para-12 to 15 which
read as under:
"12. It is obvious from the statement of PW-4 that she has
been subjected to cruelty by her husband and relatives of
husband and payment of Rs. 5000/- on two separate occasions
has also been corroborated by the version of PW-1 Rajesh
Kumar Mahato and P.W.-3 Tanu Ram Mahto, father of
Complainant. The Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Bermo at
Tenughat has also dismissed the T. (M) S. No.38/2000 and has
extremely differed with the stand of husband.
13. On taking a glance to the letters written by complainant
to her husband, it appears that she was puzzled due to atrocities
of her husband and relatives of husband upon herself.
Complainant has stated in her cross-examination that under
compulsion of her husband, she has noted down these letters,
but as soon as, I go through the contents of these letters, I find
that complainant has stated this fact in nervousness during her
cross-examination and contents of these letters goes against the
behaviour of her husband and family members and I am of the
view that these letters are not helpful for the defence party.
14. The defence has also taken a stand that when her husband
filed matrimonial suit against her to obtain a decree of divorce,
in repercussion, she has filed this complaint case. It might be
possible that this complaint case has been filed after filing of the
matrimonial suit, but I am of the view that filling of
matrimonial suit earlier, any way effect the merit of this case?
15. After considering the entire evidences available on the
record, I come to the conclusion that complainant has been
subjected to cruelty by her husband Raj Kumar Mahato, father-
in-law Suklal Mahato, mother-in-law Udashi Mahatain, Debar
Bishwanath Mahato and second debar Ashok Kumar Mahato.
So far as the allegation against nanad Radhi Devi is concerned,
this fact has come in course of cross-examination of the
complainant that prior to her marriage, she was already
married, she had also children, it is obvious that married Nanad
rarely occasions to visit her maika and in such a situation,
cruelty by a married Nanad appears not reasonable."
17. This Court further finds that the learned appellate court
also considered the oral and documentary evidences adduced
on behalf of the parties and also the arguments placed on their
behalf and recorded concurrent findings and concluded that
cruelty and harassment, as stated by the prosecution witnesses,
including complainant herself, has been well proved by the
complainant beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. The
appellate court also recorded that, it is also admitted fact that
after Institution of this case, a F.I.R. was lodged against her
husband, devar and others for committing attempt to murder
while she was residing at her parents' house, for which a case
was registered and the same was committed to the court of
Sessions, where the said case figured as S.T.No.03/2002, in
which these appellants alongwith others were convicted and
sentenced u/s 307 I.P.C. by the court of 1st Addl. Sessions
Judge, Bokaro and appellant no. 1 preferred an appeal before
the Hon'ble Court and enlarged on bail. It is also admitted fact
that occurrence of said case took place on 31.12.2000.
The learned appellate court further recorded that, Cruelty
and torture started just after five months of marriage ceremony
of the complainant with appellant no.1. She lived at her
matrimonial home till Durgapuja, October 1998 and after that,
appellants started torture to the complainant and put forth the
demand of Bajaj scooter and also sum of Rs.15,000/- as dowry
for running business of appellant no.1 and appellant no.2
always pressurized to the complainant for bringing scooter and
a sum of Rs.15,000/- as a dowry whereupon, complainant
expressed her inability for bringing the same.
18. This Court finds that P.W.-4, Mamta Devi is the
Complainant of the case who has died on 16.04.2009. During
trial she deposed that after marriage, when she went to her
matrimonial house, her mother-in-law, father-in-law, husband
and dewars started demanding Bajaj Scooter and Rs. 15,000/-
from her father and she sent the message to her father. Anyhow
her father arranged Rs.5,000/- and sent to her matrimonial
house through her brother and even then, the demand of
scooter and rest amount continued. She further deposed that
her father again sent Rs.5,000/-, but the behaviour of her
husband and relatives of her husband did not become
harmonious and she was continuously subjected to cruelty by
assault and abuse and ultimately, her husband himself brought
her at her parental house with a threatening not to come to their
house without a scooter and the rest amount. In cross-
examination, several questions were asked about her transit
from her parental house to her matrimonial house and vice-
versa. she admitted that notice of divorce case was sent in her
name and the present complaint case was filed prior to another
S.T. Case No. 03/2002 and she filed the present complaint case
due to demand of dowry which was lastly made on 01.11.2000.
She denied the suggestion that she administered poison to her
dewar Ashok Kumar Mahto who was admitted in hospital. She
also admitted that few letters were written by her which have
been marked as Exhibits-A to E, but she clearly deposed that
these letters were written under pressure of her husband. She
further admitted that she had lodged two cases against her
husband.
19. This Court finds that the Complainant (P.W.-4) has fully
supported the prosecution case regarding demand of dowry
and consequent torture at the hands of the accused persons on
account of its non-fulfillment. This Court further finds that
P.W.-1, the eldest brother of the Complainant and P.W.-3, the
father of the Complainant and also P.W.-2 who is an
independent witness, have fully corroborated the evidence of
the Complainant with regard to the assault and abuse made to
the Complainant and also the demand of scooter and
Rs.15,000/- from the Complainant.
20. This Court finds that both the learned courts below have
carefully scrutinized the evidences of the witnesses adduced on
behalf of the Complainant and have recorded concurrent
findings of facts and have found sufficient evidence for
conviction of the petitioners under Section 498(A) of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. This
Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the conviction
of the petitioners calling for any interference under revisional
jurisdiction.
21. This Court is of the considered view that considering the
entire facts and circumstances of the case, the weight of
evidences available against the petitioners and the gravity of
the offences committed by them, the petitioners do not deserve
any leniency on the point of their sentence and this Court is also
not inclined to interfere with the sentences imposed upon the
petitioners by the learned trial court and affirmed by the
learned appellate court.
22. Accordingly, the Judgment of conviction and the order of
sentence of the petitioners in Cr. Rev. No. 873 of 2012, Cr. Rev.
No. 875 of 2012 and Cr. Rev. No. 86 of 2013 passed by the
learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court
are hereby affirmed.
23. This Court finds that although there were allegations
made by the complainant against her sister-in-law, but the
learned trial court acquitted the sister-in-law by giving her the
benefit of doubt by observing that her sister-in-law was already
married at the time of marriage of the complainant and she also
had children and in such circumstances observed that it was
obvious that married Nanad rarely occasions to visit her Maika
and in such a situation, cruelty by a married Nanad appears not
reasonable.
24. This Court finds that a specific argument was raised
before the appellate court that the other accused persons i.e.
father-in-law, mother-in-law and two brothers-in-law used to
reside separately in the government quarter allotted to the
father-in-law, but such plea was rejected by the learned
appellate court by citing reasons. This Court finds that the case
of married sister-in-law stood on a different footing and she
was extended the benefit of doubt by the learned trial court
itself.
25. So far as the allegations against the present petitioners are
concerned, there are consistent findings of demand of dowry
and torture against them and the learned courts below have
convicted them by well-reasoned judgements considering the
evidences on record. There being no perversity or illegality in
the impugned judgements of conviction, no interreference is
called for in revisional jurisdiction.
On the point of sentence
26. However, considering the fact that the case was instituted
in the year 2000 and also considering the present age of the
father-in-law and the mother-in-law of the complainant, this
Court finds that ends of justice would be served if their
sentence is modified to some extent. Accordingly, the sentence
of the father-in-law (petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 1039/2012) and
mother-in-law (petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 1049/2012) is
modified and is reduced to a period of one year with fine of
Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each to be deposited
by them before the learned trial court within a period of two
months from the date of communication of this judgement to
the learned trial court. In case of non-deposit of the fine
amount, they would undergo the punishment already imposed
by the learned courts below. Bail bonds furnished by the
petitioners in Cr. Revision No. 1039 of 2012 and Cr. Revision
No. 1049 of 2012 are hereby cancelled.
27. Accordingly, Cr. Rev. No. 1039 of 2012 and Cr. Rev. No.
1049 of 2012 are disposed of with aforesaid modification of
sentence.
28. So far as the husband and two brother-in law of the
complainant are concerned, this court does not find any reason
to interfered with the sentence imposed upon them by the
learned court below. Accordingly, Cr. Rev. No. 873 of 2012, Cr.
Rev. No. 875 of 2012 and Cr. Rev. No. 86 of 2013 are dismissed.
Bail bonds furnished by petitioners in Cr. Rev. No. 873 of 2012,
Cr. Rev. No. 875 of 2012 and Cr. Rev. No. 86 of 2013 are hereby
cancelled.
29. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as
not pressed.
30. Let the Lower Court Records be immediately sent back to
the court concerned.
31. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned
court below through "FAX/Email".
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj/Saurav
