Jharkhand High Court
Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 June, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 724 of 2016
---------
Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Bhagyawati Devi ... Opposite Parties
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. N. K. Sahani, Advocate
: Mrs. Gouri Debi, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, A.P.P.
---------
C.A.V. on 01.03.2023 Pronounced on 21.06.2023
Heard the parties.
This petitioner Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar Singh has filed this
criminal revision application against the judgment dated 05.04.2016
passed by Sri Kausal Kishore Jha, learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII,
East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No.142/2009, whereby
and wherein, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.05.2009 passed by
Sri Kumar Pawan, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in
connection with C/1 Case No.995/2001, holding the petitioner guilty of
offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of
the D.P. Act and thereby sentencing him to undergo R.I. for two years
alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code, R.I. for one year alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/- under
Section 4 of the D.P. Act, in default of payment of fine, he was further
directed to undergo imprisonment for two months for each of the offences.
All the sentences were ordered to the run-concurrently.
The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of complaint
petition filed by the opposite party No.2 Bhagayawati Devi alleging
therein that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on
04.03.2001, as per Hindu Rites and Custom. After marriage, she observed
that the petitioner was mentally disabled and abnormal sexually. It is
alleged that her in-laws started taunting her that she had not brought
sufficient dowry. Her husband demanded Rs.20,000/- for starting a
business, to enforce the demand, she was tortured and ultimately she was
driven away from her matrimonial home.
In order to prove its case 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.
Bhagayawati Devi C.W.4, who is the complainant / opposite party
No.2 has stated that she was married to the petitioner on 04.03.2001.
During the marriage Rs.60,000/- and other article were given as dowry.
After marriage, she was tortured for not bringing sufficient dowry and
ultimately she was driven away from matrimonial home. She has been
cross-examined at length. She has admitted that just after the marriage,
she found that her husband was mentally disabled. She informed her
father. She has further stated that she want divorce from her husband. She
does not want to reside with him. She has also stated that her husband
demanded Rs.20,000/- for starting his business. She was confronted with
the application, which she had filed in maintenance case i.e. Matrimonial
Suit No.467/2002, in which she has alleged that demand of Rs.2,000/- was
made. She has admitted that her father had given Rs.60,000/- to her
father-in-law and not Rs.65,000/- by way of draft, which was mentioned
in the complaint petition. She has admitted that the petitioner had filed a
matrimonial suit No.467/2002. During the proceeding in the suit, she
refused to return to her matrimonial home even after persuasion by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court. She has stated that she does not
like her husband, she has stated that her marriage was a mistake.
Ram Pravesh Singh C.W.2 and Rajmuni Devi C.W.3 are parents of
the opposite party No.2 respectively. They have stated that marriage of
their daughter was performed with the petitioner on 04.03.2001 and
Rs.60,000/- were given as dowry at the time of marriage. They have stated
that her daughter had complained that the petitioner was mentally
disabled.
In his cross-examination Ram Pravesh Singh C.W.2 has stated that
his daughter does not want go to her matrimonial home. He has stated
that the petitioner did not agree to take his daughter to their matrimonial
home from the Family Court in Matrimonial Suit Case No.467/2002. He
has stated that a list of the articles, which were given as dowry during the
marriage was prepared, but it was not signed.
From perusal of the evidence adduced by the defence, it transpires
that Ram Babu Singh D.W.1 has stated that the opposite party No.2 does
not want to reside with her husband.
Sonu Kumar Srivastava D.W.2 has stated that the opposite party
No.2 and the petitioner were married on 04.03.2001. He has stated that the
petitioner had gone to bring back the opposite party No.2, but she refused
to return to her matrimonial home.
Biran Devi D.W.3 has stated that the opposite party No.2 after
residing at her matrimonial home for 1 ½ months went to her maikey and
thereafter, she did not return.
From the aforesaid oral evidence adduced by both the sides, it is
evident that the opposite party No.2 Bhagayawati Devi was married to the
petitioner Rajesh Kumar Singh on 04.03.2001. There is allegation that
Rs.65,000/- by way of Bank draft was given to the petitioner as dowry
alongwith other articles. No documentary evidence has been brought on
record in support of his allegation. In fact, there is contradiction in the
amount of money paid to the petitioner as stated in the complaint petition
and as stated by the witnesses. As far as allegation of demand of
Rs.20,000/- is concerned, the defence has been able to point discrepancy
between this allegation and the averment made in the application for
divorce, where it was stated that Rs.2,000/- was demanded.
From the entire gamut of the prosecution case, it is evident that the
opposite party No.2 did not like this petitioner as she felt that he was
mentally disabled. She has categorically stated that she does not want to
reside with the petitioner and she wants divorce from him. On the same
set of evidence, the learned Appellate Court has acquitted the in-laws of
the opposite party No.2.
Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the opposite party No.2 has
failed to prove its case against the petitioner for the offences under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
This application is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order
of sentence passed by the leaned Trial Court is set aside.
Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of.
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
Jay/-
