Rumy @ Rumi Paramanik @ Baby ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3324 Jhar

                                           1




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                               Cr. Revision No. 627 of 2012

                   Rumy @ Rumi Paramanik @ Baby Paramanik, Wife of Sri
                   Bimal Paramanik, Resident of Village- Kolchokra, P.O. &
                   P.S.-Chakardharpur, District-East Singhbhum.
                                                        ...    ...   Petitioner
                                       Versus
                1. The State of Jharkhand
                2. Sapna Paramanik, W/o Late Durga Charan Paramanik @
                   Rajesh Paramanik, Resident of C/o Narendra Nath
                   Paramanik, House No.-62, New Sitaram Dera, Main Road,
                   P.S. Sitaramdera, P.O.-Agrico, Town-Jamshedpur, District-
                   East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. ...           ...     Opp. Parties

                                             With
                               Cr. Revision No. 632 of 2012

                1. Ratanlal Paramanik, Son of Late Ankur Paramanik,
                2. Archana Paramanik, Wife of Ratanlal Paramanik,
                   Both Residences of Toklo Road, Near Biscuit Factory,
                   Chakardharpur, P.O. & P.S. - Chakardharpur, District-West
                   Singhbhum.                          ...    ...     Petitioners
                                       Versus
                1. The State of Jharkhand
                2. Sapna Paramanik, W/o Late Durga Charan Paramanik @
                   Rajesh Paramanik, Resident of C/o Narendra Nath
                   Paramanik, House No.-62, New Sitaram Dera, Main Road,
                   P.S. Sitaramdera, P.O.-Agrico, Town-Jamshedpur, District-
                   East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. ...          ...      Opp. Parties
                                       ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

Through: Video Conferencing

07/08.09.2021

1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the cases.

2. Heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State in Cr. Revision No. 627/2012 and Cr. Rev. No. 632/2012 respectively.

3. The present criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 04.07.2012 passed in Cr. Appeal No.

86/2011 as well as Cr. Appeal No. 87/2011 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, whereby the learned appellate court has been pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by the respective petitioners by upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.05.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in Complaint C/1 Case No. 1844/2006 corresponding to T.R. No. 817/2011. The petitioners have been convicted for offence under Sections 323/341/504/498-A read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 498-A of IPC, but no separate sentence has been awarded for rest of the offences.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioners in both the cases

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that so far as the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 627/2012 is concerned, she at the relevant time, was unmarried sister-in-law of the complainant and so far as petitioners in Cr. Revision No. 632/2012 are concerned, they are father-in-law and mother-in- law of the complainant respectively.

5. The learned counsel, while assailing the impugned judgment of conviction, has submitted that so far as husband of the complainant is concerned, he had expired during the pendency of the trial and this fact has been recorded at para-4 of the trial court's judgment and consequently, vide order dated 15.05.2008, the proceeding against him was dropped. He has also submitted that so far as the present petitioners of both the cases are concerned, there are general and omnibus allegation against them and no specific allegation have been made. He has also submitted that the genesis of the case was that the complainant herself had stated that she came to know that her husband was having illicit relationship with another girl, which

was in the knowledge of her mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law. The learned counsel submits that in support of this fact, one letter was produced before the learned court below, which was written by the complainant's husband and was marked as Ext.-2/2. The learned counsel has submitted that no independent witness, as such, has been examined, although the complainant had herself stated that when the neighbours assembled and raised objection, her husband brought her to her maika and left there.

6. The learned counsel submits that as of now, the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 627/2012 has got married and so far as petitioners in Cr. Revision No. 632/2012 are concerned, they are aged persons being father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant. He submits that on the date of conviction i.e., 03.05.2010, the father-in-law was 59 years of age and mother-in- law was 53 years of age and accordingly, their present age is 70 years and 64 years respectively. The learned counsel also submits that the case was instituted by way of complaint case in the month of December, 2006 and accordingly, almost 15 years have elapsed from the date of filing of the complaint. The learned counsel submits that father-in-law of the complainant was arrested on 30.08.2012 and mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant had surrendered before the learned court below on 30.08.2012 itself, and they were directed to be enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 05.09.2012 and a few days must have been taken by them to furnish the bail bond and accordingly, they have remained in custody in connection with the present case for a period of about one week. He also submits that there is no previous conviction of the petitioner and that it was their first offence.

7. The learned counsel submits that considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case and the aforesaid

submissions and the time gap which has elapsed from the date of incident till today, some sympathetic view may be taken and sentence be modified. He has also submitted that some fine amount may be imposed and some victim compensation may be fixed.

Arguments on behalf of the opposite party-State

8. The respective learned counsels appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State in both the cases, on the other hand, have submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below and although there is specific allegation of assault made against the husband of the complainant, but allegations of assault and torture have also been made against the present petitioners i.e., father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant. They have submitted that the learned courts below have scrutinized the materials on record and have accordingly convicted the petitioners for offence under Section 498-A of IPC as well as under Sections 323, 341 and 504 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. The learned counsels submit that the demand of property along with harassment of the complainant has been proved and in fact, it has also come on record that the father of the complainant was also forced to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the accused persons pursuant to such demand, but in spite of that they were not satisfied and they continued to harass and assault the complainant and ultimately, the complainant was driven out of her matrimonial house on 02.05.2003 and thereafter, she gave birth of a female child on 02.08.2003 and subsequently on 15.02.2004, she went to her matrimonial house with her father, but the accused persons abused her and did not allow to enter into her matrimonial house and demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and a motorcycle. However, the learned counsels do not dispute the fact that the complainant had stated that she

came to know that her husband was having illicit relationship with another girl, which was also within the knowledge of her father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-laws. The learned counsels submit that taking the entire facts and circumstances, the judgment of conviction, which has been recorded by the learned court below, does not call for any interference, but so far as sentence is concerned, it is for the court to take into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and pass appropriate order.

Findings of this Court

9. The present case was instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the complainant-Sapna Kumari. The marriage of the complainant was solemnized on 13.03.2001 with accused-Durga Charan Paramanik @ Rajesh Paramanik (since deceased) as per Hindu Rites and Customs and at the time of marriage, the father of the complainant had given gold ornaments amounting to Rs. 50,000/- and other household articles and also cash as per the demand of the accused persons. The complainant lived happily in her matrimonial house for a period of about three months and after three months of marriage, the accused persons started demanding money and they abused, insulted and assaulted the complainant continuously for two months due to non-fulfillment of demand and when her father was informed, he gave a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the accused and requested them not to make any such demand in future, but the demand from the side of the accused persons continued. It has been specifically alleged that the husband of the complainant used to assault her and did not take any care of her and even the complainant was not provided proper food and cloths.

10. So far as father-in-law of the complainant is concerned, it has been specifically alleged that he was a habitual drunker and

used to come with intoxication and used to abuse the complainant with all sorts of dirty words and filthy language and subjected her to cruelty. So far as mother-in-law of the complainant is concerned, she used to compel the complainant to wash all dirty cloths of the accused persons and so far as sister-in-law is concerned, she has been instigating the complainant's husband to assault the complainant. It was also alleged that the complainant was beaten by all the three accused persons. It was alleged that when she became pregnant and was not able to do domestic works hurriedly, she was assaulted and ultimately, she was thrown out of her matrimonial house on 02.05.2003 and she gave birth to a female child on 02.08.2003 and after three months, her husband came to see her child and assured that he would come again to take her, but he did not come. On 15.02.2004, the complainant went to her matrimonial house with her father, but the accused persons did not allow the complainant to enter into the house and again demanded Rs. 50,000/- in cash and one motorcycle and they were stated that they will keep the complainant only upon fulfillment of the demand. Thereafter, the complainant came to know about the illicit relationship of her husband with another girl and that her husband is living with another girl in the knowledge and with the consent of the accused persons. The complainant again went to her matrimonial house on 30.11.2006 along with her minor child and father, but the accused persons abused her with filthy language and flatly refused to keep her and minor child and they all did not return the gold ornaments, gifts and domestic articles given by her parents and ultimately, she filed the complaint case.

11. During the course of trial, altogether four witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution; out of them C.W.-1 is the complainant herself, C.W.-2 is the father of the

complainant, C.W.-3 is brother-in-law of the complainant and C.W.-4 is the uncle of the complainant. All the witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case and the evidences of all these witnesses are fully corroborated with each other in view of the fact that they all have stated in their evidences that the accused persons had assaulted, insulted and tortured the complainant and they demanded money and one motorcycle from the father of the complainant. During the course of evidence, the complainant has proved the complaint petition, which was marked as Ext.-1. She has also proved two different letters, which were sent by him to her father, which were marked as Ext.-2 and 2/1 respectively and she has also proved a letter, which was written by her husband and was marked as Ext.-2/2. The complainant has also filed some bills of purchase of articles, which were marked as Ext.-4, 5 and 6 respectively.

12. After closure of prosecution evidences, the statements of the petitioners were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein they totally denied the allegations levelled against them and claimed to be innocent.

13. This Court finds that the learned trial court after considering the materials on record recorded that it was well proved by the complainant by adducing evidence that all the accused persons, who are father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant in furtherance of common intention, had assaulted, insulted and harassed the complainant with a view to force her to fulfill their demand of dowry and when it was not fulfilled, she was restrained to leave her matrimonial house and ultimately she was ousted from there. The learned trial court recorded that all the charges levelled against the accused persons were proved beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly, convicted the petitioners for offence under Sections 323, 341, 504 and 498-A of IPC read with Section

34 of IPC, but the learned trial court sentenced them only under Section 498-A of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months.

14. The learned appellate court also considered all the materials on record and gave concurrent findings at para-10 of its judgment, which reads as under: -

"10. After carefully considering the evidence of the witnesses and the material which are available on record, I find that complainant who has examined as C.W.-1 has fully supported her contention which she has mentioned in the complaint petition. This witness has specifically leveled allegation against her husband including these appellants. She has said that all the appellants were abusing her. They were also demanding money from her father. There was illicit relationship of her husband with another girl which was in the knowledge of theses appellants. The contents which has come in the evidence of C.W. 1 shows that she has leveled allegation against all these appellants regarding torture made upon her. In cross-examination this witness is stick over her statement which she has said in her examination-in-chief. C.W. 2, C.W. 3 and C.W. 4 in their evidences have fully supported the case of the complainant as well as the contention which has come in the evidence of C.W. 1. All of these witnesses have said that at the time of marriage sufficient gifts were given to the accused persons including cash as well jewelries and other articles. But the accused persons were not satisfied with those gifts and after some time they started torturing and assaulting the complainant. In the evidence of these witnesses it has come that accused persons were not providing food and clothes to the complainant and they tried to pacify the matter but the accused persons did not agree and the torture was continued. The evidence of these witnesses shows that at the time of pregnancy the complainant was tortured by the appellants and ultimately she was driven away from her in-laws house then she took shelter at her father's house where she gave birth of a female child but none of her in-laws came to visit her and at present complainant and her child are residing with her father. The evidence

of these witnesses corroborative to each other and in their cross examination also they have fully supported the contention which has come in their evidence-in-chief. The defence has failed to bring any contradiction in the statement of the witnesses to create any reasonable doubt upon their testimony."

15. The learned appellate court also recorded that the learned trial court has considered the evidences of the witnesses and the materials which have been brought on record and the findings recorded by the learned trial court were proper and the learned trial court has not committed any error. The learned appellate court affirmed the findings as well as the sentence given by the learned trial court.

16. This Court finds that there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by the learned courts below and no such convincing argument has been advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners indicating any illegality, perversity or material irregularity, so far as the judgment of conviction is concerned. This Court finds that the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below are well- reasoned judgment, although there is specific allegation of assault was made against the husband of the complainant, but the allegations of assault and torture have also been made and proved against the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in- law of the complainant. The allegations against the present three petitioners have been made by the complainant which have been duly supported by the evidence of other witnesses available on record and accordingly, arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been convicted only on general and omnibus allegation, is not correct. Otherwise also, there is no scope for re-appreciation of evidences on record and coming to a different finding in limited

revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction of the petitioners is uphold.

17. So far as the sentence is concerned, the fact remain that the husband of the complainant is no more and the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 627/2012 has now been married as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the fact that the present age of the petitioner Nos.-1 and 2 in Cr. Revision No. 632/2012 is 70 years and 64 years respectively and about 15 years have elapsed from the date of incident and the petitioners have faced the rigors of criminal case for a long time. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that ends of justice would be served, if the sentence of the petitioners is modified and limited to the period already undergone by them in judicial custody with some fine amount.

18. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioners is hereby modified and limited it to the period already undergone by them in judicial custody in connection with the present case with fine of Rs. 25,000/- for petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 627/2012 and fine of Rs. 40,000/- each in connection with the petitioners in Cr. Revision No. 632/2012. The entire fine amount is to be deposited within a period of three months from the date of communication of a copy of this order to the learned court below and the entire fine amount is directed to be remitted to the complainant of the case- opposite party no. 2, after due identification.

19. If the aforesaid fine amount is deposited within stipulated time frame, the bailors of the respective petitioners will be discharged from their liabilities under the bail bond. In case, the fine amount is not deposited within the stipulated time frame, the bail bonds furnished by petitioners will be immediately

cancelled by the learned court below and they would serve the sentences as imposed by the learned court below.

20. The present criminal revision applications are disposed of with the aforesaid modification of sentence.

21. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are closed.

22. Let the lower courts records be sent back to the court concerned.

23. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through 'e-mail/FAX'.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul