Jharkhand High Court
Ashok Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 67 of 2007
-------
Ashok Singh ...... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sangeeta Devi ..... .... Opp. Parties
With
Cr. Revision No. 70 of 2007
------
Kalawati Devi ..... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
--------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. D. K. Karmakar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. S. K. Srivastava, A.P.P
For the Opp.Party No.2 : Md. Yasir Arafat, Advocate [Cr. Rev. No. 67/2007]
--------
10/ Dated 10.08.2023
Heard the parties.
Both these applications arise out of the same impugned judgment and
as such, these revision applications are being disposed of by this common
order.
The petitioner Ashok Singh in Cr. Revision No.67/2007 and petitioner
Kalawati Devi in Cr. Revision No.70/2007 have filed these applications
against the judgment dated 04.11.2006, passed by Sri Nalin Kumar, learned
Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.IV, Hazaribag in
Criminal Appeal No.21/2006, whereby and wherein, learned Additional
Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.IV, Hazaribag partly allowed the
appeal of the petitioners by modifying the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 20.01.2006 passed by Sri Daya Ram, learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st class, Hazaribag in Complaint Case No.1125/2001, whereby
and wherein, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Hazaribag held the
petitioner Ashok Singh guilty of offences under Sections 498A and 379 of
the Indian Penal Code and thereby, sentencing him to undergo imprisonment
of two years along-with a fine of Rs.3,000/- for each of the offences under
Section 498A and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of
fine, he was further directed to undergo imprisonment for three months.
Learned Appellate Court modified the judgment of Trial Court by
setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence under Section
379 of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioner Kalawati Devi was held guilty of offence under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment of one and half years along-with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the
aforesaid offence. In default of payment of fine, she was further directed to
undergo imprisonment for one month.
The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of complaint case
filed by the opposite party No.2 Sangeeta Devi, alleging therein that her
marriage with the petitioner Ashok Singh was solemnized on 15.06.1997.
After one year of marriage, the petitioner started demanding Rs.20,000/-
and to enforce the demand, she was tortured and ultimately, she was driven
away from her matrimonial home.
In order to prove its case, opposite party No.2 has adduced both oral
and documentary evidence. On the basis of evidence available on record,
both the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court have come to
the concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioners.
Opposite party No.2 Sangeeta Devi has been examined as C.W.4. She
has supported the allegation as made out in the complaint petition. She has
stated that she was married to the petitioner Ashok Singh, six years ago.
After marriage, there was demand of Rs.20,000/-. To enforce the demand,
she was tortured and ultimately she was driven away from her matrimonial
home. She has also stated that while she was staying in the house of her
father, the petitioner along-with his brother had come there and they
committed theft of Rs.2,000/- and jewelries by removing it from the box,
kept in the house of her father.
In her cross-examination, she has stated that for one year after
marriage, she resided peacefully at her matrimonial home. After one year,
she was subjected to torture by the accused persons. She has stated that her
husband was having illicit relationship with her sister-in-law. She has
further stated that she wants to resume her matrimonial relationship.
Rajendra Singh, C.W.3 is the father of opposite party No.2. He has
corroborated the statement of opposite party No.2, stating therein that she
was married to the petitioner Ashok Singh and after marriage, she was
tortured to enforce the demand of dowry. He has stated that the petitioner
had demanded Rs.20,000/-. However, in his cross-examination, he has
stated that he had not paid Rs.20,000/- as demanded by the petitioner.
The other prosecution witnesses have also corroborated the case of
opposite party No.2, stating therein that she was tortured to enforce the
demand of dowry.
Considering the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the opposite
party No. 2 has been able to prove its case against the petitioners for
committing offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and as
such, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Court below holding
the petitioners guilty for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code is affirmed.
Mr. D. K. Karmakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
and Md. Yasir Arafat, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2,
both have submitted that the parties have settled their dispute and they are
residing together. Md. Yasir Arafat, learned counsel for the opposite party
No.2 has further submitted that the opposite party No.2 does not want to
further pursue this case as she is residing peacefully in her matrimonial
home with the petitioner.
Considering the aforesaid facts, the order of sentence passed by the
learned Trial Court, directing the petitioner Ashok Kumar to undergo
imprisonment of two years along-with a fine of Rs.3,000/- and petitioner
Kalawati Devi to undergo imprisonment for one and half years along-with a
fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal
Code is set aside.
The petitioners are directed to execute bond of Rs.20,000/- with two
sureties of like amount for maintaining peace and good behavior for a
period of two years. In default of which, they shall appear before the learned
Trial Court to face the sentence as directed.
Both these applications are partly allowed.
Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
BS/ (Ambuj Nath, J.)
