Jharkhand High Court
Bijay Saw vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 415 of 2015
Bijay Saw, s/o Hiraman Saw, r/o Manaitand, Kumharpatti, PS-Dhansar, PO
& District-Dhanbad ...... . Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Smt. Bharti Devi, d/o Jhari Lal Saw, w/o Bijay Saw, r/o village-
Saraidhela, PO, PS and District-Dhanbad ..... Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, APP
For O.P No.2 : Mrs. Archana Kumari Singh, Amicus
-------
Order No.11 /Dated: 11th November 2022
Bijay Saw, who was convicted and sentenced to RI of two years
and a fine of Rs.2000/- under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and
SI for six months and a fine of Rs.500/- under section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act with default stipulations on both counts, filed Criminal
Appeal No. 272 of 2011 against the aforesaid order passed in C.P Case
No.258 of 2001 corresponding to T.R No.495 of 2011.
2. Criminal Appeal No.272 of 2011 has been partly allowed
inasmuch as conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner for the
offence under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been set aside
while confirming his conviction and sentence for the offence under
section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
3. In Criminal Appeal No.272 of 2011, the learned appellate Court
has held as under:
"17. There is nothing on the record to show that there was any
demand of dowry at the time of marriage. Accordingly, I am of the
view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case
against the appellant, Bijay Saw for the offence U/s 4 of the D.P
Act at all. Accordingly, the appellant Bijay Saw is acquitted from
the charge U/s 4 of the D.P Act. As far as offence U/s 498A I.P.C. is
concerned. As discussed above, the prosecution has been able to
prove its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts
and as such the learned court has rightly held him in guilty. The
sentence passed by the learned court below for offence U/s 498
I.P.C. is modified to the extent that the appellant shall undergo R.I
for two years for offence U/s 498A I.P.C. along with fine of
Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall be further
2 Criminal Revision No. 415 of 2015
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.
This appeal is dismissed."
4. Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that as many as three witnesses did not tender their evidence in the
trial and while so conviction of the petitioner only on the basis of the
evidence of the complainant and her father is not proper and liable to be set
aside.
5. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that no
particular number of witnesses is required for proof of any fact in any trial
or enquiry.
6. The said provision in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is the
reason conviction of an accused can be recorded even on the basis of
testimony of a sole witness.
7. In "Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra" (2007) 14 SCC 150, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
"28. ......it is clear that Indian legal system does not insist on
plurality of witnesses. Neither the legislature (Section 134 of the
Evidence Act, 1872) nor the judiciary mandates that there must be
particular number of witnesses to record an order of conviction
against the accused. Our legal system has always laid emphasis on
value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity,
multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a
competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness
and record conviction......"
8. May be three of the witnesses did not turn up after substance of
the accusation was read over to the accused to give their evidence, the
complainant who is the sufferer has supported the allegations against her
husband in the Court. She is substantially supported by evidence of her
father who has stated that during stay of his daughter in her matrimonial
home for six months she was subjected to harassment and torture in
connection to demand of a colour T.V, scooter and a piece of land measuring
about 5 kathas.
9. Explanation (b) to section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code
provides that harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a
view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful
demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure of
her or any person related to her to meet such demand would amount to
cruelty.
3 Criminal Revision No. 415 of 2015
10. Explanation to section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code reads as
under:
"Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means--
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive
the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to
life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view
to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful
demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of
failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
11. There is another aspect of the matter for the reason of which
this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction is not inclined to interfere
with the order of conviction under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code
passed against the petitioner.
12. In "State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan
Namboodiri" (1999) 2 SCC 452, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed
as under:
"5. .... In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for
and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of
satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any
finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of
supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting
miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be
equated with the power of an appellate court nor can it be treated
even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it
would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the
evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the
evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as
the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought
to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount
to gross miscarriage of justice. ..."
13. However, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order of
punishment primarily for the reason that it is more than 20 years since the
complaint case being C.P Case No.258 of 2001 was filed by the wife of the
petitioner.
14. In view of the judgments in "Surendran v. Sub-Inspector of
Police" 2021 SCC OnLine SC 445 and "Prakash Chandra Agnihotri v.
State of M.P." 1990 Supp SCC 764, I am inclined to modify the sentence
awarded to the petitioner to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to RI
of three months with a fine of Rs.1000/- besides compensation of
Rs.50000/- which shall be paid to O.P No.2. After payment of
4 Criminal Revision No. 415 of 2015
compensation, the petitioner who is on bail vide order dated 18 th September
2015 shall be discharged of liability of the bail bonds furnished by him.
15. Criminal Revision No.415 of 2015 is disposed of, in the
aforesaid terms.
16. Let the lower Court records be sent back to the Court concerned
forthwith.
17. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Court concerned
through "Fax".
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
sudhir
