Jharkhand High Court
Tarun Pandit Son Of Raghunath ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 646 of 2012
Tarun Pandit Son of Raghunath Pandit, resident of Village-
Udalbani, P.O.+P.S. & District - Jamtara ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Yasoda Pandit, W/o Tarun Pandit, D/o Satish Pandit, R/o Vill.
Ladna, P.O.- Mihijam, P.S. Mihijam, Dist. Jamtara
......Opposite parties
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nityanand Prasad Choudhary,
Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate
---
Through Video Conferencing
08/28.06.2021
1. Heard Mr. Nityanand Prasad Choudhary, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the opposite party-State.
3. Heard Mr. Abhishek Singh, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the opposite party No. 2.
4. This revision petition has been directed against the judgement
dated 30.06.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara in
Cr. Appeal No. 13/2011, by which, the learned Sessions Judge has
confirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. The
petitioner was convicted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Jamtara vide judgment dated 06.07.2011 passed in P.C.R.
Case No. 117/2001 and T.R. No. 110/2011, whereby the petitioner
was found guilty for offence under Sections 498-A/323 of the Indian
Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of two years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- for offence under
Section 498-A of the IPC and in default of payment of fine, he was to
undergo imprisonment for a further period of six months. The
petitioner was also awarded sentence for a period of four months for
offence under Section 323 of the IPC. The realized amount was to be
given to the complainant as compensation.
Arguments of the petitioner
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is the sole convict in the present case and happens
to be the husband of the complainant-opposite party No. 2 who has
been convicted for the offences under Section 498-A and Section 323
of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel further submits that the
petitioner had filed a case being Matrimonial Suit No. 10 of 2001 on
16.03.2001 for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act and the complaint was filed on 25.04.2001. He
further submits that filing of the case under restitution of conjugal
rights clearly indicates that the petitioner is willing to keep the
opposite party No. 2. Learned counsel submits that from perusal of
the records of this case it appears that there was some dispute in
connection with the jewellery which was to be given by the
petitioner to the opposite party No. 2 which escalated and, in fact,
the petitioner had made an arrangement for a separate rented house
for the complainant. Learned counsel submits that in the aforesaid
facts and circumstances of the case, conviction of the petitioner
under Section 498-A IPC as well as under Section 323 of the Indian
Penal Code cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
6. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submission, learned counsel
has also submitted that the case was instituted as back as in the year
2001 and more than 20 years have elapsed from the date of filing of
the case. Accordingly, he submitted that some sympathetic view
may be taken and sentence may be modified as the petitioner has
been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years
under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and imprisonment for
4 months for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the
petitioner had surrendered before the learned court below during
the pendency of the present case on 27.08.2012 and was directed to
be enlarged on bail by the order of this court dated 01.09.2012.
Arguments of the opposite party
7. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the State as well as
opposite party No. 2 while opposing the prayer have submitted that
there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below
after considering the materials on record and there is no scope for
interference in the conviction of the petitioner in revisional
jurisdiction. There is neither any perversity nor any illegality in the
order passed by the learned court below.
So far as sentence is concerned, the learned counsels have submitted
that considering the facts and circumstances of this case, if this court
is inclined to modify the sentence, then some heavy fine amount
may be imposed upon the petitioner which may be directed to be
remitted to the victim-opposite party No. 2.
Findings of this Court
8. As per the prosecution case, the complainant was married with
the petitioner in the month of April, 1999. On the eve of marriage
and on demand of accused persons, the father of the complainant
had to give Rs. 50,000/- in cash as well as clothes and utensils etc.
worth Rs. 10,000/-. The accused persons had assured that out of
Rs. 50,000/-, they would provide 3 ½ bhari of gold ornaments to the
complainant, but after marriage, they did not give the ornaments to
the complainant. After a few months of marriage, the accused
persons started asking the complainant to bring at least Rs. 20,000/-
from her father as a separate house is required to be built for want of
accommodation. The accused persons used to assault and insult the
complainant frequently and they always insisted to pursue her
father to pay Rs. 20,000/-. Meanwhile, the petitioner started
demanding a motorcycle as the father of the complainant got
voluntary retirement from his service at Hindustan Cables. The
accused persons started talking that the father of the complainant
would get huge amount and accordingly, they pressed for payment
of money. It is the further case of the complainant that when the
father of the complainant used to visit her, the accused persons
demanded money and motorcycle, but when he expressed his
inability, the accused persons started inhuman torture upon the
complainant. Meanwhile, she became pregnant and during her
pregnancy, she was very sick, but the accused persons neither
provided any medical treatment nor gave any nutrition food and
seeing the ill health of the complainant, her father came in January,
2000 for taking her to his house for proper medical treatment and
diet. At first, the accused persons abused and misbehaved with her
father, but ultimately on persuasion of villagers, she was allowed to
go. On 14.05.2000, the complainant gave birth to a female child and
in spite of information given to in-laws, none of the accused came to
saw the complainant and the baby. Ultimately on 17.05.2000, the
father of the complainant went to her in-laws' house to invite them
to see the baby, but the accused persons became violent and
assaulted the father of the complainant and snatched his motorcycle
and cash money of Rs. 3,000/-. The villagers ultimately intervened
and the father of the complainant fled away and filed a report about
the occurrence to Jamtara Police. Ultimately a Panchayati was held
on 02.06.2000 and the accused persons agreed to behave properly
with the complainant and to take her back. The petitioner being the
husband also sworn an affidavit on 06.06.2000. Upon such Panchayati
and assurance, the complainant again started living in the house of
the accused persons since 14.07.2000, but the accused persons did
not change their attitude against the complainant and continued to
tease, abuse and assault her. It is the further case of the complainant
that the accused persons drove the complainant out of their house
and provided a small room in a rented house at contagious village
and asked her to live there with her baby. She was provided small
quantity of rice by the accused daily for her maintenance. It is also
the case of the complainant that at the time of driving her out, the
accused persons forcibly obtained her signatures on several blank
papers. The father of the complainant and other relatives used to
come to the said rented room and gave money for her maintenance
as well as the baby. The health of the complainant and her baby
deteriorated due to such cruel behaviour. It is further the case of the
complainant that on 1st Aghahan (17.11.2000), the petitioner severely
assaulted the complainant and fled away from the rented house.
There was no food in the house and the husband of the complainant
did not return on 18&19.11.2000, then the complainant hired a
rickshaw and went to her father's house on 19.11.2000. It is also the
case of the complainant that the accused persons had rendered the
complainant's life miserable and she may be driven to commit
suicide due to their cruel behaviour. Accordingly, a prayer was
made to try the accused persons for offence under Sections 498-
A/323 of the Indian Penal Code.
9. On behalf of the complainant, altogether 11 witnesses were
examined. P.W.-1 is Mahavir Pandit, P.W.-2 is Hemchandra Mondal,
P.W.-3 is Satish Pandit (father of the complainant), P.W.-4 is Yasoda
Pandit (complainant herself), P.W.-5 is Nirmal Kumar Murmu,
P.W.6 is Paresh Bouri, P.W.-7 is Ashok Das, P.W.-8 is Manoranjan
Bhandari, P.W.-9 is Debu Pandit, P.W.-10 is Yomkesh Poddaya and
P.W.-11 is Tahir Hussain.
10. The following documentary evidences were exhibited on behalf
of the complainant: -
Ext. 1 to 1/2 are the Signatures of Nirmal Chandra Murmu, Satish
Chandra Pandit and Raghunath Pandit on withdrawal petition. Ext.
2/1 is the written application of Nawala Kishore Singh dated
08.04.2001 of Criminal Misc. Case No. 191/2001. Ext. 2/1 is the
written application of Jalaluddin Khan on 29.10.2001 of Criminal
Misc. Case No. 84/01, Ext. 3 is the Signature of Yasoda on Criminal
Misc. Petition No. 862/2000. Ext.4 is the Signature of Manoranjan
Bhandari on compromise petition. Ext.-5 is the compromise petition
and signature of Tarun Pandit and Raghunath Pandit. Ext.6 is the
C.C. of order dated 20.06.2003 of the court of Sessions Judge, Jamtara
passed in Matrimonial Case No. 07 of 2001. Ext.7 is the C.C. of order
dated 19.11.2001 of the court of SDM, Jamtara in Misc. Case No.
84/2001, Ext.8 is the C.C. of order sheet dated 06.04.2001 passed by
SDM, Jamtara in Criminal Misc. Case No. 191/2001. Ext. 9 is the C.C.
of judgment passed of Principle Judge, Family Court, Dumka in
Matrimonial Case No. 10/01, Ext.-10 is the signature of Sri Sanjay
Mahatha, Advocate on affidavit. Ext.11 is the application of Satish
Pandit and Ext.-12 is the affidavit No. 116 dated 06.06.2007
11. The Statement of the accused persons were recorded under
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., whereby they declined the charges and
claimed to be innocent. No documentary or oral evidences were
adduced by the accused persons.
12. The complainant was examined as P.W.-4 who has stated that
her marriage was solemnized about three years ago in the month of
Baishakh with Tarun Pandit at Chanchala Mandir. At the time of
marriage, her father-in-law received Rs. 50,000/- cash and other
articles of Rs. 10,000/- which was paid by her father. The in-laws
assured her that they will give her some ornaments, but they did not
do so. She alleged that her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law,
Bhaisur (brother-in-law) all of them tortured her and abused her and
demanded Rs. 20,000/- for construction of house. Her husband also
demanded Rajdoot motorcycle, but her father was unable to fulfil
their demands. She also deposed that when she was pregnant of
about five months and her condition was not good, her husband did
not take care for her treatment at that time and after receiving the
information, her father had come to take her to his house for
treatment. She gave birth to a female child in the month of Baishakh
and in the meantime, no one from her in-laws' house came to see
her. When her father went to them, they snatched his motorcycle
and cash Rs. 3,000/-. Her father informed the matter to the police
and ultimately a Panchayati was held, wherein her father-in-law
gave written assurance that his son would keep his wife in
respectful manner. Thereafter, they brought her and kept her in a
rented house, where her husband came to take wine and demanded
money and only gave her one quarter kg. rice for her maintenance.
The father and brother of this witness came and gave her money for
maintenance. Ultimately, the complainant and her child fell sick and
during that period, the petitioner assaulted her and then she came to
her father's house.
This witness has been cross-examined by the defence, wherein she
has deposed that it was not within her knowledge whether the
petitioner had filed any case in the court of District Judge, but she
appeared in the court of District Judge in the case filed by the
petitioner. She also agreed to go to her in-laws' house, if the
petitioner keeps her in a proper manner. At para-4 of her cross-
examination, she has stated that she was beaten at her in-laws'
house.
13. P.W.-1 is the uncle of the petitioner who has stated that the
father of the complainant gave Rs. 50,000/- and utensils etc. at the
time of marriage. This witness further deposed that after marriage,
the complainant used to reside at her in-laws' house where her
husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and other members made
scuffle with her and they demanded Rs. 20,000/- for construction of
their house and also demanded a motorcycle. He had also stated
that the father of the complainant took V.R.S. and the accused
persons demanded money. This witness has also stated that when
the complainant became pregnant, the accused persons did not take
care of her. However, her father brought her to his house where she
born a child, but no one of her in-laws' house came to see the child
and when her father went to inform them, they abused him and
snatched his motorcycle. The father of the complainant informed the
matter to the police. Further, the matter was settled by the villagers
and the petitioner gave written assurance that he would keep his
wife properly, but again tortured her and took her in a rented house.
This witness has specifically stated that about 8 to 9 months ago, the
petitioner had beaten the complainant and then she came to her
father's house. This witness has stated that the in-laws of the
complainant kept her in a rented house at adjacent village.
14. P.W.-2 has supported the prosecution case by stating that
when the complainant went to her in-laws' house, they demanded
Rs. 20,000/-. This witness has also supported the other version of the
complainant.
15. P.W.-3 is the father of the complainant. This witness has also
supported the prosecution case. This witness has also stated that the
in-laws of the complainant had assured at the time of marriage that
out of Rs. 50,000/-, they would give ornaments of 3 ½ bhar to the
bride, but they did not do so rather they tortured her and demanded
Rs. 20,000/- and the petitioner also demanded a Rajdoot motorcycle.
This witness has stated that he failed to fulfil all the demand of the
accused persons. In the meantime, her daughter was pregnant, but
the accused persons did not take proper care, then he came and
brought his daughter who gave birth to a child. Thereafter, he went
to the in-laws' house on 17.05.2000, where the accused persons
caught him and snatched his motorcycle and Rs. 3,000/- from his
pocket. Thereafter, this witness informed the police, but on
intervention of the villagers, the matter was settled and the
petitioner gave written assurance for not repeating such act.
Thereafter, in the month of Asharh, the complainant came to her in-
laws' house and after two-three days, he came to know that his
daughter was kept in a rented house, where her husband assaulted
her and ultimately his daughter came to his house.
In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that his son-in-law
filed a case in the court of District Judge, Dumka for restitution of
conjugal rights and the complainant got Rs. 750/- per month for her
maintenance and Rs. 3,000/- as litigation expenses. This witness has
stated that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence of any assault
with his daughter.
16. P.W.-5 is the witness who has fully supported the prosecution
case and this witness had put his signature on the settlement paper
and exhibited the same.
17. The learned court below while considering the documentary
evidences on record found that exhibit-12 is the notary affidavit
sworn by the petitioner, wherein he assured that he along with his
family members will bring the complainant and her minor. He
further assured that they will be maintained by him with full
honour. The signature of the petitioner and his father on the
affidavit were exhibited. Further there is exhibit-9 which is
judgment dated 07.09.2006 passed by the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Dumka and in the said judgment, it was held that it
was not the wilful conduct nor voluntary withdrawal of the wife of
the petitioner from his company without any cause rather it is the
act of demand of money from the complainant by her husband (the
petitioner) and his family members and not keeping her on their
failure to fulfil the demand and accordingly, the suit for restitution
of conjugal rights was dismissed. The learned trial court observed
that the exhibited documents fully corroborated with the oral
evidences of the complainant and the other complainant witnesses
and there was no vital contradiction pointed out by the defence. The
learned trial court convicted all the accused persons for offence
under Section 498-A of the IPC and the petitioner was additionally
found guilty of offence under Section 323 of the IPC.
18. So far as the sentence is concerned, the learned trial court
sentenced all the convicts for rigorous imprisonment for two years
with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to
undergo imprisonment for a further period of six months for offence
under Section 498-A of the IPC. Further, the petitioner was also
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of four months for
offence under Section 323 of the IPC. The realized amount was to be
given to the complainant as compensation.
19. The learned appellate court also considered all the material
evidences on record, both oral and documentary, and held that the
petitioner who is the husband of the complainant demanded
motorcycle and assaulted and tortured the complainant and threw
the complainant out of her matrimonial house. The learned appellate
court further recorded that from the evidences on record apart from
the specific allegation made against the petitioner-husband, no
specific allegations of torture or assault have been made against
other accused persons. The learned appellate court recorded that the
petitioner had also sworn affidavit that he would keep the
complainant properly and with owner, but did not comply with the
same and ultimately assaulted and tortured the complainant. The
appellate court upheld the order of conviction of the petitioner-
husband passed by the trial court.
However, so far as the other accused are concerned, the appellate
court held that there was no sufficient material against them for
alleged offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and
accordingly, acquitted them for the alleged offence. The learned
appellate court allowed the appeal filed by the other accused
persons and their conviction was set-aside. So far as the present
petitioner is concerned, the conviction as well as the sentence passed
against him was upheld.
20. This Court finds that the learned trial court as well as the
learned appellate court meticulously considered the material
evidences on record and held the petitioner guilty of demanding
motorcycle from the complainant and on account of non-fulfilment
of the demand, assaulted and tortured the complainant and
ultimately threw the complainant out of her matrimonial house. This
Court finds that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned
judgments.
21. So far as the filing of matrimonial suit for restitution of
conjugal rights is concerned, the willingness of the petitioner to keep
the complainant has no bearing in the matter. Further, the fact that
the petitioner had made an arrangement of separate rented house
for the complainant also does not cut any ice in favour of the
petitioner in view of the fact that the petitioner had tortured and
assaulted the complainant even at the rented house. There are
consistent findings of facts recorded by the learned courts below
regarding torture and assault of the complainant at the hand of the
petitioner and demand of motorcycle and accordingly, there is no
scope for interference in the revisional jurisdiction.
22. On the point of sentence, this Court finds that the F.I.R. was
filed in the year 2001 and since then, more than 20 years have
elapsed. The petitioner has faced the rigours of the criminal
litigation for a long period and he has already remained in custody
for 11 days and the present case is his first offence. Considering
these aspects of the case, the ends of justice would be served, if the
sentence of the petitioner is modified to some extent and the fine
amount is enhanced.
23. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner under Section 498-A
of the Indian Penal Code is modified and reduced to Rigorous
Imprisonment for six (06) months and the fine amount is enhanced
to Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand) to be deposited before the learned
trial court within a period of two months from the date of
communication of this order to the learned court below. This Court
is not inclined to interfere with the sentence passed under Section
323 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences shall run
concurrently and the period of custody already undergone by the
petitioner shall be set off.
24. The learned trial court is directed to remit the fine amount, so
deposited by the petitioner, to the Complainant upon due
identification. If the fine amount is not deposited within the time
frame as indicated above, the petitioner would serve the sentences
imposed by the learned trial court.
25. Accordingly, with aforesaid findings, directions and
modification in the sentence of the petitioner, the present criminal
revision petition is hereby disposed of.
26. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
27. The bail bond furnished by the petitioner is cancelled.
28. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not
pressed.
29. Let the Lower Court Records be immediately sent back to the
court concerned.
30. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court
below through "FAX/Email".
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul/Pankaj
