Jharkhand High Court
Krishna Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 September, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 323 of 2011
Krishna Mandal ... ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Mithun Mandalain ... ... Opposite Parties
------
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
-----
For the Petitioner : M/s. A. K. Das, Advocate
For the State : M/s. S. S. Kumar, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : M/s. Satya Satakshi, Amicus Curiae
---
06/06.09.2023 Heard the parties.
The petitioner has filed this application against the
judgment dated 14.02.2011, passed by Sri R. K. Vaish, learned
Sessions Judge, Sahibganj in criminal appeal no. 06 of 2010
whereby and wherein the learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj,
dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 20.02.2010, passed by Sri
Ramesh Chandra, learned J.M.F.C., Rajmahal in P.C.R. Case No.
358 of 1999, holding the petitioner guilty of offence under Section
498A of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentencing him to
undergo R.I. for two years alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- and in
default of payment of fine, the petitioner was further directed to
undergo imprisonment for a period of three months.
The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the
complaint petition filed by the opposite party no. 2, alleging therein
that she was married to the petitioner on 20.04.1993 as per Hindu
Rites and Customs. After her marriage, she started residing at her
matrimonial home. She resided peacefully till 1995. After she
became pregnant, she went to her father's house where she gave
birth to a girl child. When she returned to her matrimonial home on
04.12.1995, she came to know that the petitioner had entered into
relationship with another lady namely Maya Mandalian. When she
opposed their relationship, she was assaulted, the accused persons
also sprinkled kerosene oil on her with the intention of immolating
her. However, the villagers came to her rescue and saved her.
Thereafter, she left her matrimonial home.
In order to prove its case, the opposite party no. 2 has
adduced oral evidence. Both the learned trial court as well as the
learned appellate court have come to a concurrent finding regarding
the guilt of the petitioner.
The opposite party no. 2, Mithun Mandalian has been
examined as P.W.5. She has supported the allegation as made out in
the complaint petition. She has stated that her marriage with the
petitioner was solemnized 12 years ago. After 2.5 years of marriage,
she became pregnant and went to her father's house. When she went
to her matrimonial home after her delivery she came to know that
her husband has entered into a relationship with another lady
namely Maya Mandalian. The opposite party no. 2 opposed their
relationship but she was abused, the accused persons also tried to
immolate her. On her hulla, neighbors reached there and rescued
her. In her cross-examination, she has stated that the accused
persons had also instituted a police case against her father. She has
further stated that the accused persons had instituted three cases
against her family members. She has stated that she was never
given any medical treatment for burn injury, she has refused to
return to her matrimonial home as the petitioner was having illicit
relationship with another lady. Baneshwar Pramanik P.W.4 has
stated that on the date of occurrence on hulla, he went to the house
of the petitioner and saw that the accused persons were assaulting
her and they were demanding money from her. This witness has not
appeared for his cross examination after charge. As such, his
examination-in-chief will not be read in evidence.
Kalipado Mandal P.W.2, who is father of the opposite
party no.2 has supported the case of the opposite party no. 2 and has
stated that after 2.5 years of marriage her daughter became pregnant
and came to his house. He has further stated that after delivery,
when she returned to her matrimonial home her daughter came to
know that the petitioner had entered into an extra marital
relationship with one lady namely Maya Mandalian. When his
daughter opposed their relationship, the accused persons demanded
Rs. 5000/- and they also sprinkled kerosene oil on her. In his cross-
examination he has stated that he was told about the occurrence by
his daughter. He has admitted that both the parties were contesting
four cases. Tinkauri Mandal P.W.3 did not appear for his cross-
examination after charge as such his examination-in-chief will not
be read in evidence. Baneshwar Pramanik P.W.4 has stated that the
opposite party no. 2 was married to the petitioner, when she
returned from her father's house after delivery she came to know
that the petitioner had entered into extramarital relationship with
Maya Mandalian. He has stated that the petitioner and his family
members had tried to immolate the opposite party no. 2 by
sprinkling kerosene oil on her. In his cross-examination he has
stated that the opposite party no. 2 is residing in the house of her
father since last 13 years. He was told about the occurrence by the
opposite party no. 2, 15 years ago. He has specifically stated at
paragraph 8 that Krishna Mandal resides in Bengal and he has never
visited his house.
From the aforesaid facts; it is apparent that the main
bone of contention between the parties is that the petitioner had
entered into extra marital affairs with another lady namely, Maya
Mandalian. This is a general statement made by the opposite party
no. 2 and her witnesses. No evidence has been led on the point as to
who was Maya Mandalian, they have not stated that they have seen
the petitioner residing with Maya Mandalian. As far as the
allegation of sprinkling kerosene oil on the opposite party no. 2 is
concerned, it is a general statement. The opposite party no. 2 nor
her witnesses have stated the date and time when this occurrence
has taken place. It further appears that the parties are involved in a
series of litigation.
In view of above; I am of the opinion that the opposite
party no. 2 has not been able to prove its case against the petitioner
for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code
beyond all reasonable doubt. Both the learned trial court as well as
the learned appellate court had wrongly held the petitioner guilty
for the offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
This Criminal Revision Application is allowed. The
Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned
trial court is set aside.
Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
Before parting, I would like to record my deep sense of
appreciation for M/s. Satya Satakshi, who has very ably assisted this
court during the hearing of this revision application.
Member Secretary, JHALSA is directed to pay
Rs.5,000/- to her as remuneration for her services rendered as
Amicus Curiae.
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
Saurabh
Uploaded
