Jharkhand High Court
Baburam Hansda vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 193 of 2011
Baburam Hansda --- --- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Hopan Mai Murmu --- --- Opp. Parties
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath
---
For the Petitioner: Mr. Niraj Narayan Mishra, Advocate
For the O.P-State: Mr. Subodh Kr. Dubey, A.P.P
For the O.P. No. 2: M/s Gautam Kumar, Savita Kumari, Advocates
---
16 / 09.10.2023 Petitioner has filed this revision application against the judgment dated
01.10.2010, passed by Shri Binay Kumar Sahay, Sessions Judge, Pakur in Crl.
Appeal No. 42/2007, whereby and wherein, the learned Sessions Judge, Pakur
dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 11.09.2007, passed by Sri Piyush Kumar, Sub
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pakur in P.C.R. Case No. 203/2003, holding the
petitioner guilty for the offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code
and sentencing him to undergo R.I for two years and six months along with a
fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he was further directed to
undergo R.I for one month.
2. Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of complaint petition filed
by the complainant / opposite party no. 2-Hopan Mai Murmu, alleging therein
that she was married to the petitioner ten years ago. After three years of
marriage, petitioner demanded Rs. 5,000/- for purchasing a bicycle. To enforce
the demand, she was tortured and ultimately, she was driven away from her
matrimonial home. It is further alleged that the petitioner started living in live-
in relationship with one Sanjhali Hembrom.
3, Opposite party no. 2 has adduced oral evidence. Petitioner has also
adduced oral defence evidence. Both the learned Trial Court as well as the
learned Appellate Court have come to concurrent findings regarding the guilt of
the petitioner.
4. Opposite party no. 2 Hopan Mai Murmu has been examined as C.W-3.
She has reiterated his statement made in the complaint petition that the
petitioner had demand Rs. 5,000/- for purchasing a bicycle. When demand was
not fulfilled, he started torturing the opposite party no. 2 and ultimately, she
was driven away from her matrimonial home. In her cross-examination, she has
stated that she has filed the complaint case after she was driven away from her
matrimonial home. She has denied the suggestion that she was married to the
petitioner.
4. Krishna Mariya (C.W-1) and Bhogen Soren (C.W-2), both have
supported the case of the complainant and stated that opposite party no. 2 was
married to the petitioner. After marriage, one girl child was born out of the
wedlock. Both these witnesses have stated that petitioner had demanded
Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant and to enforce the demand, he used to torture
the complainant / opposite party no. 2. She was ultimately driven away from
her matrimonial home. In his cross-examination, C.W-1 has stated that no
dowry was demanded in his presence, but he heard that petitioner was
demanding Rs. 5,000/-.
5. Devilal Murmu (C.W-4) is another witness who has stated that the
petitioner was demanding Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant and to enforce the
demand, he used to torture the complainant and ultimately, she was driven
away from her matrimonial home. He has stated that the petitioner had married
another lady. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he came to know
about the occurrence from the village Pradhan.
6. Chunnu Kisku (C.W-5) did not appear for cross-examination. As such,
his deposition in the court cannot be read into evidence against the petitioner.
7. From the aforesaid oral testimony of the witnesses adduced by the
opposite party no. 2, it appears that general, vague and omnibus allegation has
been made against the petitioner that he was demanding Rs. 5,000/- for
purchasing a bicycle, neither complainant nor her witnesses have stated as to
when demand of Rs. 5,000/- was made, when she was tortured and when she
was driven away from her matrimonial home.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the opposite
party no. 2 has failed to prove her case against the petitioner for committing
offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the
judgement of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial
Court, so affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, is hereby set aside.
9. This Revision Application is allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands
disposed of.
(Ambuj Nath, J)
Ranjeet/
Uploaded
