Md. Sultan vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 2100 Jhar

                                                  Cr. Revision No.285 of 2016
                                    -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
           Cr. Revision No. 285 of 2016
                       ----------

Md. Sultan                         ... Petitioner
                      -Versus-

The State of Jharkhand                        ...     Opp. Parties
                                ----------

CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
                                ----------
For the Petitioner         : Mr. Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate
For the State              : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P
                                 ---------
C.A.V On 15.02.2023                      Pronounced On 19.05.2023

      Heard the parties.

The petitioner Md. Sultan has filed this application against the judgment dated 14.12.2015, passed by Mr. Syed Matloob Hussain, learned Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No.220 of 2010, whereby and wherein, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Dhanbad dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.08.2010 passed by Sri S.N.Mishra, learned Judicial Magistrate, first class, Dhanbad in connection with Dhanbad (Bhuli O.P) P.S Case No.753 of 2005, corresponding to G.R No.4720 of 2005, holding the petitioner guilty of offences under Section 498(A) of the I.P.C and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and thereby, sentencing him to undergo R.I for two years for the offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code along-with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo S.I for 15 days. The petitioner was further sentenced to undergo R.I for a period of one year for the offence under Section 4 of the D.P. Act along-with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo S.I for ten days. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of a written report of the informant, alleging therein that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on 07.04.2005 in the Court. Subsequently, her marriage was also solemnized as per Muslim Law and Customs on 20.05.2005. After marriage, there was demand of Rs.40,000/- and color television. To Cr. Revision No.285 of 2016

enforce the demand, she was tortured and ultimately, she was driven away from her matrimonial home.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. Both the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner.

The Informant has been examined as P.W.6. She has stated that her marriage was firstly solemnized in Court on 07.04.2005 and thereafter again solemnized according to Muslim Law and Customs on 20.05.2005. After 4-5 months of the marriage, the petitioner started torturing her to enforce the demand of Rs.40,000/- and a color television. She has identified her signature on the written report.

In her cross-examination, she has stated that the petitioner was married from before. His first wife never tortured her. Presently, she is residing at her maike in Rahmatganj. She cannot give the description of the boundary of her matrimonial home. At paragraph-8 to the specific question of the Court, she has stated that no document for the marriage was prepared as Sultan had not paid any money for drawing of this document.

Md. Mustakim Ahmad P.W.1 has stated that after the marriage of the informant, the accused, Md. Sultan had demanded Rs.40,000/- and a color television and ultimately, she was driven away from her matrimonial home. He has proved the written report, which is Exhibit-1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the marriage of the informant with the petitioner was not registered in the Court. Their marriage was solemnized as per Muslim Law and Customs. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the demand of dowry was made on 27.05.2005.

Abdul Manir Ahmad, P.W.2 has stated that their marriage was solemnized on 07.04.2005 and on 20.05.2005 respectively. After marriage, the petitioner started demanding Rs.40,000/- and color Television. He has stated that presently, Sabina @ Anjum Khatoon is residing with her father and she has a daughter from their wedlock. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he was not present at the time of marriage of the informant. He has further stated that the demand was made by the petitioner on 07.04.2005.

Cr. Revision No.285 of 2016

Md. Asgar Hawari, P.W.3 has stated that he is the father of the informant. He has stated that the marriage of his daughter was solemnized on 20.05.2005. After marriage, there was demand of Rs.40,000/- and color television. After two months from marriage, his daughter was driven away from her matrimonial home.

Fatima P.W.4 has stated that she is the mother of the informant. She has stated that her daughter stayed with the petitioner for three months only. Thereafter, demand of TV and Rs.40,000/- were made. In her cross- examination, she has stated that the marriage between the parties was registered in the Court, prior to the marriage according to the customary rights. She has admitted that the first wife of the petitioner had given an informatory application before the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad that the informant and her family members were threatening to implicate the petitioner in a false case.

Mahboob Alam P.W.5 has been declared hostile.

Rambachan Ram P.W.7 who is the Investigating Officer of this case has stated that he was not given any document relating to the Court Marriage of the informant and the petitioner. He has not investigated whether the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the informant or not. He has also stated that he cannot say as to when the informant was driven away from her matrimonial home. He has admitted that the first wife of the petitioner had given informatory petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad and that the informant was trying to extort the money from the petitioner.

From the aforesaid oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it appears that there is contradiction between the statements of the witnesses regarding the fact that the marriage of the petitioner with the informant was registered in the Court, prior to the customary marriage. In fact, Md. Mustakim Ahmad P.W.1 has stated that the marriage between the parties was not solemnized in the Court. Md. Asgar Hawari P.W.3 the father of the informant has stated that he cannot say whether the parties have solemnized their marriage in the Court. He has also stated that Nikahnama of his daughter with the petitioner was not prepared. In fact, Sabina @ Anjum Khatoon P.W.6 has admitted that Nikahnama was not prepared because Md. Sultan has not deposited the money for drawing of Cr. Revision No.285 of 2016

Nikahnama.

From the aforesaid oral evidence of the parties, it is evident that the prosecution has not been able to show that the informant was legally married wife of the petitioner.

Md. Mustakim Ahmad P.W.1 has stated that the demand of dowry was made on 27.05.2005. Abdul Manir Ahmad P.W.2 has stated that demand of dowry was made on 07.04.2005. Sabina @ Anjum Khatoon P.W.6 has stated that demand of dowry was made in August. She has also failed to give description of matrimonial home and boundary of her matrimonial home.

It is admitted that first wife of the petitioner had given an informatory petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad that the informant was trying to extort money from her husband and after giving threat that he will be implicated in a false case. The informant Sabina @ Anjum Khatoon P.W.6 in her written statement has stated that there was demand of Rs.40,000/- and color television, whereas in her evidence before the Court, she has stated that there was demand of Rs.40,000/-.

Considering the various latches in the prosecution case, I am of the affirmed view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubts and both the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court have come to a wrong finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

This revision application is accordingly, allowed. The Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Court below holding the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is hereby, set aside.

Pending I.A if any also stands disposed of.

(Ambuj Nath, J.) BS/-