Jharkhand High Court
Dipak Kumar Mandal @ Deepak Kr. ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 185 of 2016
Dipak Kumar Mandal @ Deepak Kr. Mandal--- --- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Srimati Manju Mandal --- --- Opp. Parties
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath
---
For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the O.P-State: Ms. Mohua Palit, A.P.P
For the O.P. No. 2: Mr. Deepak Sahu, Advocate
---
11 / 05.09.2023 Petitioner has filed this revision application against the judgment dated
28.11.20215, passed by Shri Praveen Kumar Sinha, Additional Sessions Judge-
II, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 140/13, whereby and wherein, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad partly allowed the appeal of the
petitioner by upholding the judgment of conviction, but modifying the order of
sentence dated 13.03.2013, passed by Shri Vikram Anand, Judicial Magistrate,
1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 572/02, holding the petitioner guilty of the
offences under section 498 I.P.C and section 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act
and thereby sentencing him to undergo S.I for one year for the offence under
section 498 I.P.C; S.I for one year for the offence under section 3 of Dowry
Prohibition Act and S.I for six months for the offence under section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Learned Appellate Court reduced the sentence awarded by the learned
Trial Court to the period already undergone by him during the trial.
3. Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the complaint filed by the
opposite party no. 2 / complainant, alleging therein that she was married to the
petitioner on 28.04.1998. At the time of marriage, petitioner had taken
Rs. 1.50 lakhs as dowry. After few months of marriage, petitioner started
demanding Rs. 1.00 lakh and 10 bhar of jewellery. To enforce the demand,
opposite arty no. 2 was tortured and ultimately, she was driven away from the
matrimonial home.
4. Opposite party no. 2 has adduced oral evidence in support of her case.
Petitioner has also adduced both oral and documentary evidence in support of
his case.
5. Both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have
come to concurrent findings regarding the guilt of the petitioner.
6. From perusal of the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it
appears that Manju Mandal has been examined as C.W-4. In her deposition, she
has stated that she was married to the petitioner on 28.04.1998. After marriage,
petitioner started demanding dowry and to enforce the demand, she was
tortured and ultimately, she was driven away from the matrimonial home. She
has stated that lawyer's notice was issued to the petitioner to receive her back,
but the petitioner did not comply with the notice. In her cross-examination, she
has stated that she has filed the complaint case in the year 2002. She has not
stated in the notice that she was physically tortured by the petitioner. She has
also admitted that it was not mentioned in the lawyer's notice that money was
demanded by the petitioner after the marriage. She has also admitted that she
has not sustained any injury at the hands of the petitioner.
7. Dijo Pado Mandal, who is the father of the opposite party no. 2, has been
examined as C.W-1, Gopal Chandra Mandal and Sapan Kumar Mandal who are
the brothers of the opposite party no. 2, have been examined as C.W-2 and
C.W-3. They have supported the case of the complainant. They have stated that
opposite party No. 2 was married to the petitioner and after marriage, there was
demand of dowry. To enforce the demand, she was tortured. In his cross-
examination, C.W-1 has stated that he has not given ornaments to the petitioner
at the time of marriage. He has stated that he cannot say as to on which date his
daughter was tortured. C.W-2 in his cross-examination, has stated that he
cannot state the dates when the opposite party no. 2 had resided in her
matrimonial home. He has also stated that the petitioner is paying maintenance
to the opposite party no. 2, as directed by the Family Court, Dhanbad. Sapan
Kumar Mandal (C.W-3) in his cross-examination, has stated that the petitioner
used to work in Murshidabad and after marriage, he resided there. He has also
stated that the dispute between the parties was settled in maintenance case by
the Family Court, Dhanbad.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the
parties have settled their dispute.
9. Mr. Deepak Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite
party no. 2 has conceded this fact and stated that both the petitioner and the
opposite party no. 2 have resumed their matrimonial relationship.
10. From the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it is apparent that
there is general and vague allegation against the petitioner that he had
demanded money from the opposite party no. 2 and to enforce the demand, she
was tortured and ultimately, she was driven away from the matrimonial home.
Opposite party no. 2 has admitted that in the lawyer's notice which was given
to the petitioner, it was not mentioned that the petitioner was demanding any
dowry and for that matter, petitioner has assaulted her. However, family
members of the opposite party no. 2 have stated that money was given to the
petitioner at the time of marriage, but no documentary evidence has been
adduced on this point. It is merely an assertion.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the opposite party
no. 2 has failed to prove its case against the petitioner for the offence under
section 498 I.P.C and section 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond all
reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, is set aside.
12. This revision application is allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands
disposed of.
(Ambuj Nath, J)
Ranjeet/
