Jharkhand High Court
Pandav Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 October, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 384 of 2010
-------
Pandav Mandal ...... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Kalpana Devi ..... .... Opp. Parties
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, A.P.P
For the Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. D. C. Mishra, Advocate
--------
11/06.10.2023
Heard the parties.
The petitioner Pandav Mandal has filed this revision application against the
judgment dated 22.03.2010, passed by Sri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, learned
Sessions Judge, Dumka (as His Lordship was the then) in Criminal Appeal No.
146/2009, whereby and wherein, learned Sessions Judge, Dumka partly allowed
the appeal of the petitioner dated 16.07.2009, by modifying the judgment of
conviction and affirming the order of sentence for the offence under Section 498A
of the Indian Penal Code passed by Sri Rajeev Ranjan, learned Judicial Magistrate,
1st class, Dumka in P.C.R Case No.167/2004, holding the petitioner guilty for the
offences under Section 498-A 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 a fine of
Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and R.I for
one year alongwith a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 4 of the D.P.
Act. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was further directed to undergo
S.I for 30 days for each of the fine.
Learned Appellate Court acquitted the petitioner for the offence under
Section 4 of the D.P. Act.
The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of complaint petition filed
by the complainant Kalpana Devi, alleging therein that she was married to the
petitioner on 12.05.2001. She was residing peacefully with the petitioner but in
February, 2002, the accused persons started demanding Rs.5,000/- and T.V and to
enforce the demand, she was tortured and ultimately, she was driven away from
her matrimonial home.
The complainant has adduced both oral and documentary evidence in
support of her case. Both the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court
have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner.
On perusal of the oral testimony of the witnesses of the complainant, it
transpires that Kalpana Devi has been examined as C.W.4. In her deposition before
the Court, she has reiterated the allegation against the petitioner and the co-accused
persons that they were demanding Rs.5,000/- and T.V and to enforce the demand,
she was tortured and ultimately, in the year 2004, she was driven away from her
matrimonial home. In her deposition, she has further stated that the petitioner had
left the matrimonial home after two months from their marriage. She has further
stated that the petitioner came after six months and again left for Delhi. She cannot
say as to when he returned. She has further admitted that she cannot say as to
where the petitioner resided thereafter. She has neither stated anything regarding
the date on which the demand of dowry was made nor she has stated that when she
was tortured.
Shyam Sunder Manjhi C.W.3 is the father of the complainant. He has
supported the case of the complainant and stated that the accused persons after one
year of marriage used to torture his daughter to enforce the demand of dowry.
In his cross-examination, he has stated that his daughter had fled away from
her matrimonial home. He has stated that the complainant had told him that the
accused persons used to torture her. He has further stated that his daughter resided
at her matrimonial home peacefully for about one and half years of the marriage.
Jaldhar Jha C.W.1 and Basant Kumar Mallik C.W.2 are co-villagers. They
have supported the case of the complainant and stated that she was tortured to
enforce the demand of dowry and ultimately, she was driven away from her
matrimonial home.
It is an admitted case of the complainant that she resided peacefully in her
matrimonial home for one and half years. It is also an admitted case that the
petitioner left for Delhi after two months from their marriage and he resided most
of the time at Delhi. The father of the complainant has admitted that the
complainant herself had fled away from her matrimonial home. Though the
complainant and her witnesses have stated that she was tortured to enforce the
demand of Rs.5,000/- and a color television but this statement is very vague and
omnibus. The complainant and her witnesses have neither stated the date and time
when the demand was made nor they have stated the date, on which, she was
driven away from her matrimonial home, rather it is an admitted case that she had
herself fled away from her matrimonial home.
In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the complainant has
not been able to prove its case against the petitioner for the offence under Section
498-A of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt.
This revision application is, accordingly, allowed.
The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned
Trial Court and so modified by the learned Appellate Court is hereby, set aside.
Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
B.S/
