Jharkhand High Court
Katki Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 834 of 2010
-------
Katki Mandal ...... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Rania Devi ..... .... Opp. Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Baleshwar Yadav, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, A.P.P
For the Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Vijay Shankar Jha, Advocate
--------
08/ Dated 17.08.2023
Heard the parties.
The petitioner Katki Mandal has filed this application against the
judgment dated 26.04.2010, passed by Sri Pradeep Kr. Srivastava, learned
Sessions Judge, Dumka (as His Lordship was the then) in Cr. Appeal
No.201/2009, whereby and wherein, learned Sessions Judge, Dumka partly
allowed the appeal of the petitioner by upholding the judgment of
conviction and modifying the order of sentence passed by Sri Vinod Kumar
Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Dumka in P.C.R. Case
No.160/2003, holding the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section
498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and thereby, sentencing him to undergo R.I
for two years alongwith fine of Rs. 500/-. In case of default of payment of
fine, the petitioner was further directed to undergo S.I for one month.
Learned Appellate court reduced the sentence under Section 498(A)
of the Indian Penal Code, directing the petitioner to undergo R.I for one year
alongwith fine of Rs.500/- and in case of default, the petitioner was further
directed to undergo S.I for one month.
The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of complaint petition
filed by the opposite party No.2 Rania Devi, alleging therein that she was
married to the petitioner in the year 1998. After marriage, the petitioner
demanded Rs.10,000/- as dowry and to enforce the demand, she was
subjected to cruelty and ultimately, she was driven away from her
matrimonial home.
The opposite party No.2 Rania Devi has been examined as C.W.5.
She has supported the allegation as made out in the complaint petition. She
has stated that after four years of marriage, the petitioner started demanding
a cycle and Rs.10,000/-. She has further stated that to enforce the demand
of dowry, she was tortured and ultimately, she was driven away from
her matrimonial home.
In her cross-examination, she has stated that her marriage was
solemnized six years ago. There is one son from their wedlock. Again, she
has stated that she was driven away from matrimonial home six years ago
and after that, she again went to her matrimonial home.
The other witnesses of opposite party No.2 have corroborated the
statement regarding the demand of Rs.10,000/- and a cycle, for which, she
was tortured and ultimately, she was driven away from her matrimonial
home.
During the pendency of this revision application, the parties have
settled their dispute and the petitioner and opposite party No.2 have
resumed their conjugal life.
Affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party No.2, Rania Devi
that she is residing with the petitioner and she does not want to further
pursue this case.
Mr. Vijay Shankar Jha, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2
affirmed that the parties have resumed their matrimonial relationship.
Considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the opposite
party No.2 has proved her case against the petitioner for the offence under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, both the learned Trial
Court and the learned Appellate Court have rightly come to the finding of
guilt of the petitioner for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code.
As the parties have settled the dispute and they are residing together,
the modified sentence, so passed by the learned Appellate Court, directing
the petitioner to undergo R.I for one year alongwith fine of Rs.500/- is set
aside.
The petitioner shall be released after furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/-
with two sureties with an undertaking that he will maintain peace and good
behavior for two years, failing which, the petitioner shall appear before the
learned Trial Court to serve the sentence as directed by it.
This revision application is partly allowed with modification of
sentence.
Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
BS/ (Ambuj Nath, J.)
