Jharkhand High Court
Nand Gopal Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1049 of 2008
Nand Gopal Ram ... ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sangeeta Devi ... ... Opposite Parties
------
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
-----
For the Petitioner : M/s. Sharda Kumari, Amicus Curiae
For the State : A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : M/s. Prem Mardi, Advocate
---
09/10.08.2023 Heard the Parties.
The petitioner has filed this application against the
judgment dated 23.09.2008 passed by Sri G. K. Varma, learned
Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Appeal No.
125/2004, whereby and wherein the learned Sessions Judge,
Palamau at Daltonganj dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and
upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
13.08.2004, passed by Sri Ramesh Chandra, learned J.M.F.C.,
Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with complaint case no.
245/1996, 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 simple
imprisonment for one month.
The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the
complaint petition filed by the opposite party no. 2, Sangeeta Devi
alleging therein that her marriage was solemnized with the
petitioner in the year 1982. After one year of their marriage the
petitioner started demanding Rs. 20,000 from her and after 13 years
of marriage that is on 20.05.1995 she was driven away from her
matrimonial home.
In order to prove her case, the opposite party no. 2 has
adduced oral evidence. On the basis of the evidence available on the
record, both the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate
court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the
petitioner.
Learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the opposite
party no. 2 submitted that she and her witnesses have fully
supported the case that the petitioner had subjected her to cruelty
for demand of dowry.
The opposite party no. 2 Sangeeta Devi has been
examined as C.W.3. In her testimony before the court, she has
stated that she was married to the petitioner in the year 1982 as per
Hindu Rites and Customs. After marriage the petitioner started
demanding Rs. 20,000/- and a scooter. To enforce the demand she
was tortured and ultimately she was driven away from her
matrimonial home. In her cross-examination, she has specifically
stated that she has stayed in her matrimonial home on three
different occasions only. For the first time, she had stayed there for
5 days, second time she had stayed there for 2 days and for the third
time she had stayed for 15 days. She has stated that her husband
was employed outside and he did not used to reside at her
matrimonial home. She has also stated that she is not willing to
resume her matrimonial relationship and she is not willing to live
with the petitioner, even if he wanted to receive her back.
Surendra Kumar C.W.1 is the brother of the opposite
party no. 2. He has specifically stated that he had brought the
opposite party no. 2 to his house in 1995 on the occasion of his
marriage and thereafter the opposite party no. 2 never went to her
matrimonial home.
From the aforesaid facts, it is evident that the opposite
party no. 2 Sangeeta Devi was never forced out of her matrimonial
home. All together from 1982 to year 1995 she has spent only 20
days in her matrimonial home and that too spread around three
different occasions. As far as the statement regarding the demand of
Rs. 20,000/- and a scooter is concerned the same is general, vague
and omnibus statement. No particulars have been mentioned as to
when the said amount and scooter were demanded from her.
Considering the entire facts; I am of the opinion that
the opposite party no. 2 has not been able to prove her case against
the petitioner for committing the offence under Section 498-A of
the Indian Penal Code.
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.
The judgment of conviction and order of sentence is set
aside.
Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
Before parting, I would like to record my deep sense of
appreciation for M/s. Sharda Kumari 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
