Jharkhand High Court
Raju Burman Son Of Balram Burman vs State Of Jharkhand on 20 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 820 of 2012
Raju Burman son of Balram Burman, resident of Village Kangoi
Mihijam, P.O. & P.S. Mihijam, District Jamtara.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. Annu Burman, D/o Shri Om Prakash Burman, W/o Shri Raju
Burman, resident of Sonar Tola, Village + P.O. Dhanwar, P.S.
Dhanwar, District Giridih.
... ... Opposite Parties
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Priya Shrestha, A.P.P.
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
08/20.09.2021
1. Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Ms. Priya Shrestha, learned A.P.P. appearing on
behalf of the opposite party - State.
3. The present criminal revision application is directed
against the order dated 18.08.2012 passed by the learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Giridih in Cr. Appeal No. 59/2010,
whereby the learned appellate court upheld the conviction and
sentence of the petitioner under Section 498(A) of the Indian
Penal Code passed on 02.08.2010 by the learned Sub-Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in G.R. Case No. 1676/2006, T.R.
No. 229/2010. However, the learned appellate court set-aside
the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for offence under
Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also acquitted
the other 06 accused persons from all the charges thereunder.
4. The learned trial court had convicted the petitioner and 06
others under Section 498(A) of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act and had sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 498(A) of
IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence under
Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Arguments of the petitioner
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is the husband of the informant, who has been
convicted for offence under Section 498(A) of Indian Penal
Code. He submitted that the other family members of the
petitioner, who were also made accused in the present case, the
have been ultimately acquitted by the learned appellate court
on the ground that no specific allegation was made against
them. Learned counsel also submitted that the case of the
petitioner is on similar footing as that of the other accused
persons and the conviction of the petitioner has been sustained
only on account of the fact that he is the husband.
6. Learned counsel also raised the point that the entire
occurrence had taken place at Jamtara and the present case was
instituted at Giridih where the parents of the girl were residing
and therefore, the court at Giridih had no territorial jurisdiction
for trial of the case.
7. Learned counsel further submitted that all the accused
including the petitioner were initially convicted for offence
under Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 also, but the
appellate court vide impugned order, set aside their conviction
under Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
8. Learned counsel has pointed out that a defence witness
was examined, who had exhibited the documentary evidence
i.e. Ext. A - Signature of Advocate on Matrimonial Case No.112
of 2006, Ext.-B- Plaint of Matrimonial Case No.1112 of 2006, Ext.
C - certified copy of Complaint Case No.29 of 2006 and Ext. D
certified copy of order-sheet of Matrimonial Case No.07 of 2007
and Ext. D/A certified copy of order sheet of Complaint Case
No.29 of 2006. He further submitted that the informant in the
present case has admitted during her evidence that prior to this
case, the petitioner had lodged a criminal case against her in
Jamtara and he had also filed a divorce case against her in
Dumka. Learned counsel has submitted that considering the
aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction and
sentence of the petitioner is fit to be set aside.
9. Learned counsel has also submitted that so far as sentence
is concerned, the same is also on the excessive side, in as much
as, there is no allegation of any assault by the petitioner and on
the ground that the allegation of assault was general in nature,
other co-accused persons have been acquitted by the learned
appellate court.
Arguments of the opposite party-State
10. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, on the
other hand, opposed the prayer and submitted that within a
short span of marriage which had taken place on 13.07.2005, the
relationship between the petitioner and the informant got
strained and the petitioner accompanied the informant to his in-
laws' place and raised a demand before his in-laws also. She
also submitted that the case of the petitioner is on different
footing as compared to the others and the conviction of the
petitioner, who is the husband of the opposite party no.2, does
not call for any interference.
11. So far as the sentence is concerned, she submitted that it
is for this Court to consider the same. However, she also
submitted that the maximum sentence under Section 498(A) is
three years and the petitioner has been given punishment of
only one year, which appears to be adequate.
Findings of this Court
12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this
Court finds that the prosecution case is based on a written
report filed by the informant, wherein it was alleged that the
marriage of the informant was solemnized with Raju Burman
(petitioner herein) on 13.07.2005 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals
and the father of the informant gifted ornaments worth of Rs.
60,000/- and other articles and cash of Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid
by him to the in-laws at the time of Tilak ceremony. After the
marriage, when the informant went to her matrimonial house,
then just after second day, her in-laws started to demand cash
of Rs. 50,000/- and other household articles and also one
motorcycle and threatened the informant with dire
consequences. It was further alleged that after a week, the
informant with her husband went to her naihar and informed
about the demand of dowry. The husband of the informant also
told them that the demand was not fulfilled at the time of
marriage as per commitment and also demanded cash of Rs.
50,000/- and other household articles, but the father of the
informant expressed his inability to fulfill the said demand.
Thereafter, the informant stayed at her naihar about a week and
then she came back to her sarural with her husband. It was
further alleged that again at the time of departure, the husband
of the informant threatened her father with dire consequences
due to non-fulfillment of the said demand and when the
informant came back to her sasural, her in-laws started torturing
her due to non-fulfillment of the said demand and stopped food
and clothes and the accused persons started to commit tortured
her both mentally as well as physically. On this, the informant
conveyed message through telephone about the torture
committed by her in-laws, then the father of the informant came
and tried to convince her in-laws, but they did not pay any heed
to it and one day, her in-laws tried to administer poison to her,
but due to intervention of nearby people, her life was saved. It
was further alleged that the informant again informed her
father regarding torture committed by her in-laws and then a
Panchayati was held under the leadership of former M.L.A.,
namely, Luxman Swarnakar, but the accused persons did not
obey the order of panchas and thereafter, several Panchayati were
held in presence of both the parties, but the accused persons
again did not pay any heed to it. It was further alleged that the
in-laws of the informant snatched away her all ornaments and
driven out her from her matrimonial house and threatened her
that the second marriage of the petitioner will be solemnized.
Upon being driven out of her matrimonial house, the informant
came to her naihar and told the entire story to her parents.
13. On the basis of the written report of the informant, the
officer-in-charge, Dhanwar Police Station registered a case as
Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 105/2006 on 24.08.2006 and after
completion of the investigation, the investigating officer
submitted charge-sheet under Sections 498(A)/34 of IPC and
Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused
persons including the present petitioner and cognizance was
taken under the same sections on 08.08.2007. Thereafter on
03.01.2008, charges were framed against the accused persons
under the same sections 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 seven witnesses were
examined on behalf of the prosecution; out of them, P.W.-5
Chitra Verma is the mother of the informant, P.W.-6 Annu
Verma is the informant herself and P.W.-7 Om Prakash Verma
is the father of the informant.
15. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of
the accused persons including the petitioner were recorded
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they totally denied the
allegations levelled against them and claimed to be innocent.
Thereafter, the defence examined one witness namely, Nand
Kishore Prasad as D.W.-1 who is a formal witness and proved
the signature of G. S. Jha on certified copy of petition of M. M.
Case No. 112/2006, which was marked as Ext.-A. He also
proved the certified copy of plaint of M. M. Case No. 112/2006,
which was filed in the court of 3rd Additional District Judge,
Jamtara and the same was marked as Ext.-B. He further proved
the certified copy of complaint petition of C. Case No. 29/2006
filed in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Jamtara as Ext.-C. The defence also proved the certified copy of
order-sheet dated 29.01.2010 passed in M. M. Case No. 07/2007,
which was marked as Ext.-D and certificate copy of order-sheet
dated 02.02.2010 passed in C. Case No. 29/2006 which was
exhibited as Ext.-D/a.
16. After scrutinizing the materials on record, the learned
trial court has recorded its findings at Para-18 of the judgment,
which read as under: -
"18. After careful analysis of the evidences available on the
record it appears that the marriage is admitted by both the
parties and the prosecution witnesses consistently in one
voice have proved the charges of cruelty and torture
committed by the accused persons to the victim Annu
Verma and the demand of dowry by them. There is no
contradiction find out in the statements of the prosecution
witnesses. All the PWs have stated that the accused persons
have committed cruelty and torture against the victim
Annu Verma for their demand of dowry. Though there are
some minor contradictions regarding the panchayat and
other things but in my considered view these contradictions
will not affect the merit of the case and the merit of the
evidences produced by the prosecution. Though the defence
has proved some documents as the order-sheet of M. M. Case
No. 07/07 pending in the court of the Addl. District Judge,
Jamtara and the complaint petition of Divorce Case pending
in the Family Court, Dumka in which they allegated that
before marriage of Annu Verma she was engaged with some
and she do not want to live with her husband. But nothing
is proved by the defence in support of these allegations in
this court neither they produced any document regarding
this fact. Like-wise this, they further proved Exbt-C but is
mere a complaint petition, which reflect nothing in absence
of result or verdict of any court. Exbt-D & Exbt-D/a are also
the order-sheets of the court and reflect nothing to help this
court for any conclusion in favour of defence."
17. The learned trial court was of the view that the
prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the
accused persons including the petitioner beyond all reasonable
doubts and convicted them guilty for offence under Section
498(A) of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and
accordingly sentenced them.
18. The learned appellate court also scrutinized the evidences
on record and recorded its finding at Para-15 of the judgment,
which reads as under: -
"15. From perusal of aforesaid oral as well as documentary
evidence available on record, it is crystal clear that there is
no specific allegation of any specific over act against all the
appellants except appellant no.1 (i.e. husband of
informant) in the FIR as well as in the evidence of
prosecution witnesses. Some of the prosecution witnesses
have categorically mentioned during their evidence that
informant was assaulted by her husband in their presence
while other accused persons only used abusive language.
So far as demand of dowry is concerned, it has been
specifically mentioned in the FIR that when informant
went to her naiher with her husband Raju Burman, the
aforesaid demand was made by her husband to her father.
The name of rest appellants for demanding dowry seems to
have been roped by the informant because they are relatives
of her husband. It further appears that the articles that are
alleged to be demanded by the appellants such as cash Rs.
50,000/-, colour TV, fridge, motorcycle does not seem
relevant for the personal use of all appellants rather, the
main beneficiary of these articles is clearly the husband of
informant (i.e. appellant no.1). The allegation against the
present appellants for administering poison to the
informant is also not supported through cogent and
reliable evidence. The informant herself failed to mention
the names of persons, who allegedly tried to administer
poison to her. It further appears that institution of
informant case at Jamtara and divorce case at Dumka by
Raju Burman (appellant no.1) prior to this case is also
admitted by the prosecution witnesses including the
informant. From defence evidence it is clear that prior to
this case a complaint case and matrimonial case for divorce
was institute by the husband of the informant, that alone
can't be said to have furnished a ground for false
implication."
19. So far as the argument advanced on behalf of the defence
before the learned appellate court that all the occurrence is said
to have happened in Jamtara and hence the learned court below
had no jurisdiction to try the case is concerned, the learned
appellate court was of the view that the aforesaid argument of
the defence is not tenable in view of the provisions of Section
462 of Cr. P.C. and the defence has fully participated in the trial
by adducing own evidence and hence, it cannot be said that due
trial of the case by a court having no territorial jurisdiction in
fact, failure of justice has occasioned.
20. So far as conviction under Section 498(A) of the Indian
Penal Code is concerned, the learned appellate court, after
considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the light
of the material contradictions elicited during cross-examination
of prosecution witnesses, came to a finding that except husband
of the informant (petitioner herein), the prosecution has failed
to bring home the charges levelled against the other accused
persons (appellant Nos. 2 to 7 before the learned appellate
court) beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts for offence
under Section 498(A) of IPC and accordingly, acquitted the
accused persons except the husband of the informant
(petitioner herein) for offence under Section 498(A) of IPC by
giving them benefit of doubt and upheld the conviction and
sentence of the present petitioner under the same section. But,
so far as conviction under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act is concerned, the learned appellate court recorded that it is
not legally sustainable as charges for offence under Section 3/4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be levelled simultaneously
as both offences are mutually distinct and independent
offences, and also no sanction has been obtained for offence
under Section 4 of D.P. Act and accordingly, set-side the
conviction of the accused persons including the petitioner for
offence under 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Since the
acquittal of the petitioner and others under section ¾ of the
Dowry Prohibition Act is not under challenge , nothing further
is required to be said in this regard.
21. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
perusal of the materials on record, this Court finds that P.W.-6
is the informant of the case and she deposed that she got
marriage with the petitioner on 13th July, 2005 and thereafter,
she resided with her husband and in-laws in her matrimonial
house, but just day after her marriage, the accused persons
started demanding dowry of Rs. 50,000/- in cash and other
household articles and also one motorcycle and stated that go
to her parental house and demand these things from her parents
as dowry. She further stated that after one week, she came back
to her parental house with her husband and stated about the
demand of dowry to her father, on which, her father expressed
his inability to fulfill the said demand. Thereafter, the husband
of the informant himself stated to her father to fulfill the said
demand and also stated that if the demand will not be fulfilled,
he will leave her. She further stated that again she came to her
matrimonial house with her husband, where all the accused
persons again started torturing her for the said demand and did
not obey the panchayat held in presence of both the sides. She
further stated that with intention to kill her, the accused persons
tried to administer poison to her, but anyhow she saved her life.
A panchayati was again held, but the accused persons did not
pay any heed to it and thereafter, they kicked her out of her
matrimonial house after snatching her jewelries and valuable
things. She proved the First Information Report as Ext.-1. She
was also fully cross-examined from the side of the defence and
she consistently supported the prosecution case.
22. So far as P.Ws.-5 and 7 are concerned, they are the mother
and father of the informant respectively and they have also fully
supported the prosecution case. In their evidences, they have
narrated the same story as that stated in the evidence of
informant as well as in the written report. Both were fully cross-
examined from the side of the defence and no contradiction, as
such, was pointed out by the defence.
23. So far as evidences of P.Ws.-1 to 4 are concerned, they
have also fully supported the prosecution case and the
evidences of these witness have corroborated with each other
with regard to demand of dowry by the accused persons and
also the fact that the accused persons assaulted and harassed
the informant for fulfillment of the demand. In their cross-
examination, they have consistently supported the case of the
prosecution.
24. So far as point of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, this
Court finds that a part of the cause of action had also arisen in
the District of Giridih, in as much as, it has come on record that
after one week her marriage, the informant alongwith the
petitioner came to her parents' house within the District of
Giridih and made the demand of property to the father of the
informant , to which he expressed inability to fulfill the
demand. The demand was with regard to cash of Rs. 50,000/-,
colour T.V., fridge and one motorcycle which was initially made
to the informant at her in-laws' house and subsequently, by the
petitioner -husband to her father at her parents' house. In such
circumstances, the arguments of the petitioner that there was no
territorial jurisdiction for the court at Giridih to try the case is
devoid of any merit The fact remains that the informant was
driven out of her matrimonial house and she had taken shelter
with her parents in the district of Giridih. The appellate court
has also considered the point of territorial jurisdiction and
rejected the plea by speaking order.
25. So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner has been convicted only on
account of the fact that he is the husband of the informant and
that otherwise his case is identically situated as compared to the
other co-accused persons who have been acquitted by the
learned appellate court is concerned, the same has no merits.
This Court finds that the case of the petitioner is on different
footing as there is direct allegation against the petitioner in
connection with demand of property from the informant as well
as from the father of the informant when the petitioner had
gone to the informant's house after one week of marriage and
made the demand to her father and the father of the informant
expressed his inability to fulfill the said demand. Further it was
alleged by the informant that she was assaulted and harassed at
her matrimonial house on account of non-fulfillment of the
demand and ultimately, she was driven out from there after
snatching her jewelries and valuables.
26. The learned appellate court while acquitting the other co-
accused and while upholding the conviction of the petitioner
has clearly recorded a finding that there was no specific
allegation of over act against the co-convicts, except the present
petitioner-the husband in the First Information Report as well
as in the evidences of the prosecution witnesses and some of the
prosecution witnesses have categorically mentioned during
their evidences that the informant was assaulted by her
husband in their presence while the other accused persons had
used abusive language only. The learned appellate court while
upholding the conviction of the petitioner has clearly drawn a
distinction regarding the nature of evidence proved against the
petitioner as compared to that of the co-convicts and by a well-
speaking judgment upheld the conviction of the present
petitioner and acquitted the other co-convicts.
27. So far as filing of divorce case and other criminal case by
petitioner-husband against the informant is concerned, the
same by itself is not sufficient to draw an inference of false
implication of the petitioner particularly when there are
consistent and cogent evidences on record satisfying the basic
ingredients for offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal
Code.
28. In view of the aforesaid discussions and findings and
considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this
Court is of the 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 petitioner
and there is no perversity or illegality calling for interference in
the conviction of the petitioner under Section 498(A) of the
Indian Penal Code.
29. So far as the sentence is concerned, considering the facts
that the case was filed as back as in the year 2006 and about 15
years have elapsed since then and the petitioner has faced the
rigors of the criminal case for a long time, this Court is of the
view that the ends of justice would be served if the sentence of
the petitioner is modified to some extent.
30. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner for the offence
under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code is modified and
reduced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 06 (six) months with fine
of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited before the learned court below
within a period of four months from the date of communication
of this judgement to the learned court below. In case, the fine
amount is not deposited within the stipulated time, the
petitioner would serve the sentence under Section 498(A) of the
Indian Penal Code as imposed by the learned trial court.
31. The fine amount so deposited shall be remitted to the
informant of the case after due identification.
32. Accordingly, with the aforesaid findings and
modification in the sentence of the petitioner, this criminal
revision petition is hereby disposed of.
33. Bail bond furnished by the petitioner is cancelled.
34. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
35. Let the lower court records be immediately sent back to
the learned court below.
36. Let a copy of this Judgment be communicated to the
learned court below through 'e-mail/FAX'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul/
