Jharkhand High Court

Sangeeta Kumari vs Mukul Prasad on 17 October, 2023

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
       Acquittal Appeal (C) (S.J.) No. 09 of 2022
                      ---------

(Against the order of acquittal dated 22.12.2021passed by the A.J.C.-II, Ranchi in Cr. Appeal No.186 of 2019)

---------

Sangeeta Kumari, D/O Mr. Shrawan Kumar, R/O Q. No. C.D. 374/Sector-3, H.E.C. Colony, P.O.+P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.

Ranchi                              ...            ...Appellant
                     -Versus-

1. Mukul Prasad S/O Janak Deo Prasad, R/O House No.6, Preet Vihar Cottage, Rani Bandh, Dhaiya, PO-ISM, PS+ Dist-Dhanbad

2. The State of Jharkhand ... ...Respondents

---------

                     PRESENT
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

For the Appellant  :     In Person
For the State      :     Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, A.P.P.
For the O.P.No.2   :     Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
                   ---------
C.A.V. on 13.09.2023          : Pronounced on 17.10.2023
                   ---------

The instant Appeal has been preferred on behalf of the

Appellant-Sangeeta Kumari against Mukul Prasad and State of

Jharkhand wherein the impugned Judgment dated 22.12.2021

passed in Cr. Appeal No. 186 of 2019 allowed the Cr. Appeal and

set aside the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated

16.09.2019 passed by the trial court in Complaint Case No. 1948

of 2010 whereby the learned trial court had held guilty to the

petitioner Mukul Prasad for the offence under Section 498A of

I.P.C. and sentenced with imprisonment for one and half year

simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of

fine, convict was directed to undergo simple imprisonment of 15

days.

2. The brief facts of the Complaint Case leading to this Appeal

are that the complainant filed the complaint against Mukul

Prasad, J.D. Prasad, Malti Devi, Pushpa and Dolly with these

allegations that the complainant was married with Mukul Prasad

on 06.06.2009 at Ranchi in which the complainant spent

approximately Rs. 8,00,000/- including jewellery/stridhan of Rs.

5,00,000/-. After the said marriage, accused persons took the

complainant to the matrimonial house at Karai village, Police

Station Karai, District-Nalanda (Bihar). From very first day at the

matrimonial house the complainant was taunted and humiliated

for bringing insufficient dowry and gifts for her-in-laws by the

accused Mukul Prasad, Pushpa and Dolly particularly. Accused

No.1 Mukul Prasad also taunted the complainant that the Car was

not given to him by her parents. The complainant also came to

know at her matrimonial house that her husband Mukul Prasad

was working at Aligarh was not willing to continue his job there.

Her husband was in habit of leaving jobs and he returned to

Dhanbad or to his native village Karai. Her husband either on one

pretext or the other created the situation in which the

complainant had to leave her matrimonial home within four days

from the marriage and came back to her parental house at Ranchi.

The complainant while leaving the matrimonial home was not

permitted to carry her stridhan. It was also assured by her

husband that he would come in a day or two to bring her back to

the matrimonial house at Dhanbad from Ranchi. The complainant

had been waiting for her husband that he would come to take her

back to the matrimonial house but he did not turn up and even

did not give his contact number and his whereabouts was not

known to the complainant. In such a situation the complainant

herself joined one Barclays Shared Service Private Limited at

Noida Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter on several occasion the accused

No.4 and 5 Pushpa and Dolly both contacted her parents and

brother for dowry. In February 2010 J.D. Prasad the father-in-law

of the complainant contacted the father of complainant and asked

to send the complainant to Dhanbad. The complainant applied for

leave to go to Dhanbad since the leave was not granted to her by

the employer, she was compelled to resign from her service.

Thereafter the complainant informed her in-laws that she had

returned to Ranchi and requested them to take her back to the

matrimonial home; but the accused persons never took the

complainant to the matrimonial home and demanded Rs.

5,00,000/- as dowry in addition as to what has been given at the

time of marriage. The accused No.1 her husband persuaded her

to come at Delhi so that the issue could be settled between them.

He came Delhi on 31.08.2010 and insisted for the demand of Rs.

5,00,000/- and he left the house of the complainant without

taking her with him. Thereafter the brother of the complainant

contacted to her husband Mukul Prasad the entire conversation

was recorded which the complainant craves the leave of the

Hon'ble Court to produce as and when required. The husband of

the complainant also filed a Mediation Petition No. 46 of 2010

before the Delhi High Court Mediation Conciliation Centre seeking

the amicable settlement of matrimonial discords at pre-litigation

stage. He sent one letter on 28.10.2010 to the brother of the

complainant that he was coming to Ranchi by Shatabdi Express

on 01.11.2010. Her husband came to her house at Ranchi on

01.11.2010 and again insisted the demand of dowry of Rs.

5,00,000/- and also misbehaved and manhandled her with the

parents of complainant. On account of this behaviour of the

accused persons she was forced to resign her job, however, with

all hopes that the complainant was shattered when she realized

that her husband and other accused were not interested to take

her back to her matrimonial home for non-fulfilment of the

demand of Rs.5,00,000/-. The intention of the accused to extract

the money from the complainant for the said purpose he also sent

several SMS to the complainant. In view of the above prayed to

take cognizance against the accused persons for the offence made

out of I.P.C. and to punish them.

3. On the said Complaint cognizance was taken by the court-

below against the accused Mukul Prasad, J.D. Prasad and Malti

Devi for the offence under Section 498A and 323 of I.P.C and ¾ of

Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. The learned trial court framed the charge against all the

three accused persons. On behalf of the complainant in

documentary evidence filed Ext.1 (Invitation Card), Ext.2 (Letter

sent by Janakdev Prasad in envelope dated 20.01.2020), Ext.3

(Resignation acceptance letter at Barclays Bank on 03.02.2020),

Ext.4(Train ticket from New Delhi to Ranchi for date 06.03.2010)

Ext. 4/1 (Train ticket from Hatia to Delhi for date 26.03.2010)

Ext.5 (Receipt No. 37824 of Kalika Bus Service, Ranchi Dated

22.05.2010) Ext. 5/1 (Bus ticket Dhanbad to Ranchi dated

23.05.2010) Ext. 6 (Bill of L.G. packers and movers dated

25.10.10) Ext. 7(certified copy of letter dated 9.2.10 of Gauna in

MTS 12/11) Ext.8 ( certified copy Experience certificate of

Sangeeta Kumari of Barclays Shared Pvt. Ltd. Dated 3-08-10 in

MTS 12/11) Ext.9 (certified copy of sms sent by Mukul Prasad

from 2-02-10 till 31-03-2010 by his mobile 9557134308 in MTS

12/11) Ext. 10 (certified copy of transcribed copy of the 1 st

recording in MTS 12/11 Family Court), Ext. 11(certified copy of

the deposition of P.W.-2 in MTS 12/11), Ext. 12( certified copy of

Bail Petition of Complaint Case 1329/16 in the court of CJM,

Bihar Sarif, Nalanda in MTS 12/11) Ext. 13 (certified copy of Cr

Rev 208/17 dated 14/11/17 in MTS 12/11) Ext. 14( certified copy

of Original decree in O.S. MTS 12/11 dated 07-03-2018), Material

Exhibit I-CD, X1 (Xerox of invitation card), X2 (Xerox of

provisional certificate) X3 ( Xerox of letter and envelope) X4 (Xerox

of resignation acceptance dated 4-03-10) X5 (xerox of experience

certificate), X6 (xerox of rail ticket), X7 (xerox of another rain

ticket) X7 (xerox of another rail ticket), X8 (xerox of computer

typed sms) X9 (xerox of bus ticket), X10 (xerox of e-ticket), X 11(

xerox of Bill of LG logistics) X12 (xerox of Rail ticket) X 13 (VCD)

Copy and in oral evidence examined C.W.1 Sangeeta Kumari

and C.W.2 Sanjeev Kumar.

5. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr. P.C.

was recorded who denied the incriminating circumstances in

evidence against him and claimed himself to be innocent.

6. The learned trial court after hearing the rival submissions of

the learned Counsel of the complainant and the learned Counsel

for the accused passed the impugned Judgment of conviction

and sentence on 16.09.2019 holding guilty only Mukul

Prasad; while acquitted the accused J.D. Prasad and Malti Devi

and convicting the accused Mukul Prasad for the offence

under Section 498 (A) of I.P.C. punished with imprisonment

of one and half years and a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default

of payment of fine was directed to undergo additional

imprisonment of 15 days.

7. Aggrieved from this impugned Judgment of conviction and

sentence the convict Mukul Prasad preferred the Cr. Appeal

before the Court of Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi and the same

was transferred to Addl. Judicial Commissioner-II, Ranchi. The

learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Cr. Appeal

No. 186 of 2019 allowed the appeal of the appellant and set

aside the impugned Judgment of conviction passed by the

trial court and acquitted the appellant from the charge under

Section 498A of I.P.C.

8. Aggrieved from the impugned Judgment of acquittal dated

22.12.2021 passed by the learned Appellate Court in Cr. Appeal

No. 186 of 2019, this Appeal is preferred on behalf of the

appellant/complainant on the ground that the impugned

Judgment of acquittal passed by the Appellate Court is based on

wrong appreciation of the evidence on record. The learned

Appellate Court had not appreciated the evidence on record in a

proper perspective. The learned Appellate Court has set aside the

order of the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court on

the wrong appreciation of the evidence on record.

8.1 The learned Appellate Court has not taken into

consideration the testimony of the witnesses who were examined

before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in MTS 12 of

2021 Mukul Prasad vs. Sangeeta Kumari. From the very

testimony of the witnesses who were examined before the Family

Court in MTS 12 of 2021 the cruelty is proved on the part of the

petitioner to have committed to the complainant/appellant

herein.

8.2 The learned Appellate Court has not taken into

consideration the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the

complainant/appellant herein in support of the allegations made

in the complaint.

8.3 This plea was also further raised that the learned Appellate

Court has not taken into consideration the conversation. The

audio recording of the same was recorded over the mobile phone

of the brother of the complainant and same was stored in the CD.

The recording of the same was filed on record. The learned

Appellate Court ignored the same and passed the impugned

Judgment of acquittal. The Judgment of conviction and sentence

passed by the trial court is based on the proper appreciation of

the evidence on record, the same has been set aside by the learned

Appellate Court without appreciating the documentary and oral

evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant in support of the

complaint. In view of the above, prayed to allow this Appeal and

to set aside the Judgment of acquittal passed by the Appellate

Court and to uphold the conviction of opposite party herein in the

Complaint Case as passed by the learned trial court.

9. I have heard the appellant in person and the learned

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and also the learned A.P.P. on

behalf of the State and perused the material on record.

10. For disposal of this Appeal, the following points of

determination is being framed:

Whether the impugned Judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Appellate Court in Cr. Appeal No. 186 of 2019 whereby the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court in Complaint Case No. 1948 of 2010 has been set aside and the appellant has been acquitted from the charge levelled against him is sustainable in the eye of law ?

11. To decide the legality and propriety of the impugned

Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the court-below

which was set aside by the Appellate Court and passed the

Judgment of acquittal by the Appellate Court, this Court averts to

the evidence on record adduced on behalf of the complainant in

support of her complaint.

12. On behalf of the complainant before the trial court in

evidence examined C.W.1 Sangeeta Kumari and C.W.2 Sanjeev

Kumar the brother of the complainant.

12.1 C.W.1 Sangeeta Kumari in her statement under Section

244 of Cr.P.C. before the charge not only reiterated the allegations

made in the complaint itself but also clarified and improved the

allegations made which were not in the complaint itself. In cross-

examination this witness says that on 09.06.2009 the Bahu

Bhoj was done in her matrimonial home in the very village of

her husband of District Nalanda. She stated in cross-

examination that she did not mention that on 11.06.2009 her

father-in-law made demand of INNOVA car from his brother.

In her complaint she nowhere mentioned that for non-

fulfilment of the said demand of Rs.5,00,000/- her husband

had done Mar Pit with her. The marriage of her was with her

consent. In para 62 of the cross-examination she stated that

about one and half years ago from the marriage she had met

Mukul Prasad; but she did not like him. This witness stated

suo motu that she did not like the personality and service of

Mukul Prasad. After lapse of one and half years having left the

matrimonial house, she lodged this complaint. In para 58 of

the cross-examination this witness says that her husband was

an unemployed and she did not want to reside with him in a

village.

12.2 C.W.2 Sanjeev Kumar in his statement before the charge

under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. also corroborated the complaint case

and in cross-examination this witness says that in the Mediation

Centre his sister and Mukul Prasad both were called on

19.10.2010. The other dates he does not recollect. After the

mediation having been failed, this complaint was filed. In the

in-laws house of his sister Sangeeta before 12.06.2009 there

was no dispute on the issue of jewellery. Therefore, they made

no complaint of the same to any authority.

13. So far as the testimony of Mukul Prasad in MTS 12 of 2011

Mukul Prasad vs. Sangeeta Kumari is concerned, from the

perusal of the same, the allegations in regard to subjecting the

complainant to cruelty for any demand of dowry or for non-

fulfilment of the unlawful demand is not made out.

14. The Court also has gone through the transcript copy of the

recording in the CD marked as Anenxure-3 which contains the

conversation between Mukul Prasad and the brother of the

complainant.

14.1 From the very perusal of the whole of this transcript, it is

found that the only issue between them was to take back to

the complainant by her husband Mukul Prasad. The issue was

also where to reside both as husband and wife to restitute the

conjugal relations between them. It is also found from this

conversation that the brother of the complaint Sanjeev Kumar

has also stated that his sister was talented keeping her in a

village will be to give an end to her talent. At this her husband

Mukul Prasad also replied that he was not forcing her to live in

village wherever she likes she may reside. In this conversation

issue was also to do job at some place at Delhi also where so that

both could reside together. The dispute was also on the point

that the husband of complainant was not in service. He has

stated that he has told this before the marriage and same was

also agreed by the brother of complainant. It is also found from

this conversation that the husband of the complainant was

willing to keep her with him at Dhanbad but for the same his

wife was not agreed. It has been stated by the brother of the

complainant in this conversation that the father of Mukul Prasad

had told them that his son was doing job. In reply thereof Mukul

Prasad stated that it is false and before marriage it was told that

he was doing no job.

14.2 As such from this conversation, it is found the only issue

between Mukul Prasad and his brother-in-law Sajeev Kumar is

on the point of not having job by the complainant and also

not residing the complainant with her husband in the village

rather to reside both together in Delhi or at such a place so

that the talent of the sister of the complainant could be

utilized.

14.3 There is nothing in this whole conversation in regard to

any unlawful demand or any demand of dowry as alleged in

the complaint.

15. Admittedly, the complainant resided in her

matrimonial house from 08.06.2009 to 11.06.2009 i.e. only

for four days at her matrimonial house in village Karai

District Nalanda. Though the complainant has stated in the

complaint that on very first date she was taunted and humiliated

for bringing insufficient dowry and gifts at the time of marriage,

yet there is no evidence to this effect that for the alleged

demand of less dowry she was subjected to cruelty by her

husband or any family member during her four days stay at

the matrimonial house at Karai in Nalanda rather the brother

of the complainant C.W.2 Sanjeev Kumar in his cross-

examination has stated that there was no dispute on the issue

of the jewellery in the in-laws house of his sister Sangeeta

Kumari before 12.06.2009. It was the very reason they made

no complaint anywhere of the same. From the testimony of the

brother of the complainant, it is found that there was no dispute

in regard to the jewellery on which the taunting is alleged to be

made in matrimonial house during the four days as alleged by the

complainant rather the dispute arose after 12.06.2009. There is

no evidence in regard to subjecting the complainant to cruelty by

her husband during these four days her stay at the matrimonial

house.

16. Herein the provisions of Section 498A also becomes relevant

to produce here-in-below:

Section 498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

16.1 From the bare perusal of the provisions given under Section

498A IPC, it is found husband or relative of husband of a woman

subjecting her to cruelty shall be punishable with imprisonment

for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable

to fine.

16.2 The cruelty is explained in the explanation of this Section

in two parts.

(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

17. From the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant,

there is no evidence in regard to willful conduct on the part of the

husband Mukul Prasad to drive her to cause any mental or

physical injury. There is also no evidence in regard to any

harassment made by her husband Mukul Prasad for any unlawful

demand of any property or valuable security. Though the

allegation has been made by the complainant that the demand of

Rs. 5,00,000/- and car was also made; but there is no cogent

evidence in support of the same except the bare allegation of the

complainant made in the complaint. From the evidence adduced

on behalf of the complainant and also the testimony of the

witnesses whose deposition has been filed on behalf of the

complainant of MTS Case No. 12 of 2011 Mukul Prasad vs

Sangeeta Kumari, it is found that the only dispute between the

parties was on the issue that the complainant was not willing

to reside with the complainant with her husband Mukul

Prasad in the village Karai of District Nalanda reason being

she was talented being highly qualified as admitted by the

brother of the complainant in the conversation which was

held over the mobile phone between C.W.2 brother of the

complainant and Mukul Prasad. It is also found that issue

between the parties is also that Mukul Prasad was an

unemployed. Admittedly the complainant did not like her

personality wise also having no job. On these two issues the

both parties had parted their ways since no consensus was

brought between them even before the Mediation Centre also

which was held in the Mediation Centre Delhi High Court.

Admittedly this complaint was filed after one and half years

after having left the matrimonial house by the complainant

herself where she resided only four days after solemnization

of marriage. During these four days there is no evidence that

she was subjected to any kind of cruelty or harassment.

18. The Hon'ble Apex Court held in Onkar Nath Mishra & Ors.

vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Anr. 2008(2) SCC 561:

Para 20. Section 498-A IPC was introduced with the avowed object to combat the menace of dowry deaths and harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband or his relatives. Nevertheless, the provision should not be used as a device to achieve oblique motives. Having carefully glanced through the complaint, FIR and the charge-sheet, we find that charge under Section 498-A IPC is not brought home insofar as Appellants 1 and 2 are concerned.

19. The Hon'ble Apex Court held in Preeti Gupta & Anr. vs.

State of Jharkhand & Anr. 2010 (7) SCC 667:

Para 30. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including this Court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society. Para 32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the

moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern.

20. In view of the analysis of the evidence on record, the

impugned Judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Appellate

Court needs no interference while acquitting Mukul Prasad has

set aside the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the

trial court in Complaint Case No.1948 of 2010. Accordingly, this

Acquittal Appeal deserves to be dismissed.

21. This Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment

of acquittal passed by the learned Appellate Court whereby the

Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court has

been set aside is hereby affirmed.

22. Let the court-below be certified with the Judgment of this

Court passed in the Appeal.