Jharkhand High Court
Debendra Nath Panda @ Debendra ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 866 of 2010
Debendra Nath Panda @ Debendra Panda
... ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Rakhi Behra ... ... Opposite Parties
------
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
-----
For the Petitioner : M/s. A. K. Das, Advocate
For the State : M/s. S. S. Kumar, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : M/s. Satya Satakshi, Amicus Curiae
---
12/07.08.2023 Heard the Parties.
The petitioner has filed this application against the
judgment dated 05.08.2010, passed by Sri S. K. Jha, learned
Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.,-VI, Jamshedpur, passed in Cr.
Appeal No. 168/2008, whereby and wherein the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, F.T.C.,-VI, Jamshedpur, dismissed the appeal of the
petitioner and affirmed the judgement of conviction and order of
sentence dated 02.07.2008, passed by Sri S. K. Singh, learned
S.D.J.M., Jamshedpur in connection with G. R. No. 695/1997, arising
out of Sonari P.S. Case No 38/1997, holding the petitioner guilty of
offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and thereby
sentencing him to undergo S.I. for 2 years alongwith a fine of Rs.
2,000/- and in default of payment of fine he was further directed to
undergo S.I. for 3 months.
The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of a
complaint petition filed by the opposite party no. 2. Rakhi Behra
which was referred to Sonari police station for institution of the F.I.R.
The opposite party no. 2 alleged that the petitioner after marriage
started residing in her Sasural at Sonari. Subsequently the accused
person started demanding a moped and a transistor as dowry. To
enforce the demand she was tortured and ultimately the petitioner was
driven away from her matrimonial home.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced
both oral and documentary evidence. Both the learned trial court as
well as the learned appellate court have come to a concurrent finding
regarding the guilt of the petitioner.
The opposite party no. 2 Rakhi Behra has been examined
as P.W.2. She has stated that her marriage was solemnized with the
petitioner 5 year ago at Bhutnath Mandir, Sonari. After her marriage
the petitioner started demanding a television and due to poverty her
mother could not fulfill the demand and ultimately she was driven
away from her matrimonial home. She has been cross-examined at
length. In her cross-examination she has stated that she cannot state
the time and date when her marriage was solemnized with the
petitioner. She has stated that during her marriage Saptpadi was not
performed. She has stated that demand for television was made in her
Sasural by the accused persons after two-three months of her marriage
and subsequently the petitioner dropped her in her in maike.
Sumati Behra P.W.4 is the mother of the opposite party
no. 2. She has stated that the petitioner was married to her daughter as
per Hindu Rites and Customs. They had exchanged garlands during
the marriage. She has admitted in her cross-examination that Saptpadi
was not performed during her marriage ceremony. She has also stated
that the petitioner started residing in her house after marriage and
thereafter he deserted her daughter. At paragraph 7 she has stated that
her daughter was not pregnant from the time before her marriage.
Kamla Behra P.W. 5 has stated that the petitioner and the
opposite party no. 2 resided in her house for 5 years. She has further
stated that the petitioner demanded a vehicle, a television and other
articles. In her cross-examination she has further stated that she cannot
state the date and time of their marriage.
Binita Devi P.W.1 has stated that the petitioner was
married to the opposite party no. 2 and both resided in her house as
tenants for 5 years. She has stated that the petitioner deserted the
opposite party no. 2, after 1 month from their marriage. She has
further stated that the opposite party no. 2 was pregnant from time
before her marriage.
From the aforesaid oral evidence adduced by the
prosecution, it is evident that her marriage with the petitioner is
doubtful, though she and her witnesses are claiming that her marriage
was solemnized with the petitioner but they are unable to state the date
and time on which their marriage was solemnized. It is admitted that
Saptpadi was not performed during the marriage ceremony and as per
Hindu Rites and Customs Saptpadi is essential for a marriage to be
validly performed. It further appears that in the complaint petition it
was mentioned that the petitioner was demanding Moped and
transistor. Subsequently in her evidence before the court the opposite
party no. 2 has changed and alleged that the petitioner was demanding
a television. Kamla Behra P.W.5 has stated that the both the parties
had resided in her house as tenants for 5 years. Whereas mother of the
opposite party no. 2 has stated that her daughter went to her Sasural
and resided with her separately, rather petitioner started coming and
residing in her house and subsequently he deserted her.
From the aforesaid facts, it is evident that the marriage
between the opposite party no. 2 and the petitioner and demand for
dowry has aslso not been proved. Accordingly, I come to a finding that
both the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court have
come to an erroneous finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner.
This Criminal Revision Application is allowed.
Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
Before parting, I would like to record my deep sense of
appreciation for M/s. Satya Satakshi who has very ably assisted this
court during the hearing of this revision application.
Member Secretary, JHALSA is directed to pay Rs.5,000/-
to her as remuneration for her services rendered as Amicus Curiae.
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
Saurabh
Uploaded
