Jharkhand High Court
Rameshwar Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 888 of 2016
1. Rameshwar Ram
2. Piyaso Devi --- --- Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Opp. Party
With
Cr. Revision No. 893 of 2016
Ajay Kumar Das --- --- Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Opp. Party---
Present
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath
---
For the Petitioners: Mr. Dhirendra Kr. Deo, Mr. Naresh Pd. Thakur, Advocates
For the O.P.-State: Mr. Rajendra Ram Ravi Das, A.P.P
For the Informant: Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate
---
Reserved on: 02.05.2023 Pronounced on:18.05.2023
---
Ambuj Nath, J Both these revision applications arise out of the same judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed in connection with Hazaribag Sadar
P.S. Case No. 573/2007 corresponding to G.R. No. 2723/2007. Accordingly,
both these revision applications are being disposed of by the common
judgment.
2. Petitioner No. 1-Rameshwar Ram and Petitioner No. 2-Piyaso Devi in
(Cr. Revision No. 888/2016) and the petitioner Ajay Kumar Das (in Cr.
Revision No. 893/2016) have challenged the judgment dated 18.05.2016,
passed by Mr. Surendra Sharma, learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX,
Hazaribag in Cr. Appeal No. 109/2012, whereby and wherein the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Hazaribag affirmed the judgment of conviction
but modified the order of sentence passed by Shri Sanjay Singh Yadav, Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag in connection with Hazaribag Sadar P.S. Case
No. 573/2007 corresponding to G.R. No. 2723/2007, holding the petitioners
guilty of the offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section
4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and thereby sentencing them to undergo simple
imprisonment for two years along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under section
498-A of the Indian Penal Code and in default in payment of fine, they were
directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. All the convicts were
further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year along with a
fine of Rs. 10,000/- under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and in default in
payment of fine, they were further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for
two months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. Learned Appellate Court modified the sentence passed by the learned
Trial Court and directed the petitioners to undergo R.I for two years for the
offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and R.I for two months
for the offence under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. So far as the fine
amount imposed on the petitioners under both the offences is concerned, they
remain undisturbed.
4. Petitioner No. 1-Ajay Kumar Das (Petitioner in Cr. Revision No.
893/2016) was married to the Informant Gudiya Rani. After marriage, there
was demand of a Maruti Car. To enforce this demand, Informant Gudiya Rani
was tortured and ultimately, she was driven away from the matrimonial home.
She has alleged that the petitioners had subjected her to various forms of
torture. They tried to abort her pregnancy. She was not given proper food and
clothes.
5. Prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence.
Petitioners have also adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of
their case.
6. On the basis of the evidence - both oral and documentary available on
record - both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court
have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioners.
7. Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, submitted that the petitioner-Ajay Kumar Das had initially
instituted a suit under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of
conjugal right. This suit was decreed in favour of the petitioners. After the suit
of the petitioner-Ajay Kumar Das was decreed, the Informant had instituted the
present case. Attention was drawn towards the order dated 09.06.2011 passed
by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag in M. Case No.
140/2010, which is Ext.-C. It has been opined that during the mediation, the
Informant had categorically denied to resume her matrimonial relationship with
the petitioner-Ajay Kumar Das. It has also been mentioned that her conduct
before the Mediator was not good, due to which, dispute between the parties
could not be resolved.
8. Informant of this case Gudiya Rani has been examined as P.W-6. She has
stated that she was married to the petitioner-Ajay Kumar Das on 11.03.2006,
according to Hindu rites and customs. After two months of her marriage, all the
petitioners started torturing her. Her husband Ajay Kumar Das had demanded a
car. She has stated that when she became pregnant, all the accused persons
conspired to get her baby aborted. On 16.07.2006, her husband kicked her, due
to which, she suffered miscarriage. She has given specific date on which she
was assaulted by her husband.
She has been cross-examined at length. In her cross-examination, she has
stated that she does not want to resume her matrimonial relationship. She has
stated that the petitioner-Ajay Kumar Das has also instituted a case against her
and her family members which was withdrawn at the instance of the parents of
the petitioner-Ajay Kumar Das. At para-17, she has stated that her husband had
filed a suit for restitution of conjugal right. She has also admitted that she
cannot produce any documentary evidence to support that dowry was given to
the petitioners. She has stated that she was treated at Kolkata.
9. Tulsi Ram (P.W-1) is the father of the Informant. He has stated that after
her marriage, his daughter had stayed peacefully in her matrimonial home for
four months. After marriage, his son-in-law demanded a Maruti Car. He has
further stated that to enforce his demand for Maruti Car, accused persons
started torturing the Informant and subsequently she was driven away from her
matrimonial home. He has stated that when he confronted the petitioner-Ajay
Kumar Das, he instituted two cases against him. At para-11, he has stated that
on 19.12.2007 his daughter gave birth to a child.
In his cross-examination, he had stated that his daughter is residing with
him since 2007. At Para-18, he has stated that prior to this case, petitioner-Ajay
Kumar Das had instituted a criminal case against them in which they were on
bail. Subsequently, this case was compromised.
10. Smt. Laxmi Devi (P.W-3) is the mother of the Informant. She has stated
that after marriage, her daughter went to her matrimonial home. Soon
thereafter, her son-in-law started demanding a car. She has further stated that
when her daughter became pregnant, accused persons forced her to consume
medicine for abortion.
In her cross-examination, she has stated that the petitioner-Ajay Kumar
Das had filed a case against her and her family members which was
compromised. She has further stated that the case was compromised on the
ground she will send her daughter to matrimonial home and they will keep her
properly.
11. Kamal Kumar (P.W-2) is the brother of the Informant. He has supported
the prosecution case. He has stated that the demand of Maruti Car was made by
the petitioner Ajay Kumar Das. At para-4, he has stated that the petitioner-Ajay
Kumar Das had assaulted the Informant in his presence.
12. Gobardhan Sao (P.W-4) is the co-villager of the Informant and had
supported the prosecution case.
13. Manoj Thakur (P.W-5) has been declared hostile.
14. From perusal of the evidence adduced by the petitioners, it appears that
Sanjeet Kumar Goswami (D.W-1), Duni Ravidas (D.W-2), Santosh Ravidas
(D.W-3) and Ravindra Kr. Ravidas (D.W-4) all have stated that after one and
half month of marriage, the Informant deserted her matrimonial home. They
have stated that she was neither tortured nor any demand of Maruti Car was
made.
From perusal of the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the
defence, it appears that there were series of litigation between the parties.
Earlier, Petitioner-Ajay Kumar Das had instituted a case being Ichak P.S. Case
No. 162/2007 against the Informant and her family members under various
sections including section 379 of the Indian Penal Code in which the Informant
and her family members were on bail. It further appears on perusal of the order
dated 09.06.2011 passed in M. Case No. 140/2010 that mediation between the
parties had failed due to the fact that the Informant had refused to resume her
matrimonial relationship.
15. From the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, it is apparent that the
Informant and other prosecution witnesses have corroborated the demand of
Maruti Car made by the petitioner-Ajay Kumar Das. They have also stated that
to enforce this demand, Informant was tortured by petitioner-Ajay Kumar Das.
As far as petitioner-Rameshwar Ram and Piyaso Devi are concerned, there is
general and omnibus allegation against them. It has also come in evidence that
at the instance of both these petitioners, criminal case filed by the petitioner-
Ajay Kumar Das against the informant and her family members was
compromised The allegation that the Informant had to undergo abortion after
being assaulted by the petitioners, remains unsubstantiated. Prosecution has not
adduced medical evidence in support of its case. Prosecution has also not
brought any documentary evidence on record to show that the dowry as alleged
was given to the petitioners.
16. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the prosecution
had failed to prove its case against the petitioners Rameshwar Ram and Piyaso
Devi for the offences under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and under
section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, both these petitioners are
acquitted of the charges under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and
under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
So far as the petitioner-Ajay Kumar Das is concerned, I am of the
opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against him for the
offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. I also come to a finding
that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against this petitioner for
offence under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court holding
the petitioner-Ajay Kumar Das guilty of the offence under section 498-A of the
Indian Penal Code is affirmed. However, the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 30.07.2012 passed by the learned Trial Court holding the
petitioner-Ajay Kumar Das guilty of the offence under section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act is set aside.
17. This case is of the year 2010. It appears that the parties were involved in
a series of litigation. It is also admitted that the petitioner Ajay Kumar Das had
filed an application for restitution of conjugal right under section 9 of Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955. Petitioner-Ajay Kumar Das had instituted a criminal case
against the Informant and her family members which was subsequently
withdrawn at the instance of his parents. It further appears that the petitioner-
Ajay Kumar Das wanted to resolve his dispute with the Informant, but the
dispute could not be resolved due to stubbornness of the Informant.
18. Considering the aforesaid facts, the sentence passed by the learned Trial
Court directing the petitioners to undergo simple imprisonment for two years
which was modified by the learned Appellate Court directing the petitioner-
Ajay Kumar Das to undergo R.I for two years along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-
for the offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, is set aside.
Petitioner-Ajay Kumar Das is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six
months for the offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code along
with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default in payment of fine, he is further
directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The period
undergone by the petitioner-Ajay Kumar Das during trial will be set off.
Criminal Revision Application No. 888/2016 is allowed. Criminal
Revision No. 893/2016 is partly allowed with modification of sentence.
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Ambuj Nath, J)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated 18th May, 2023
Ranjeet/
