Ishwari Das vs State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 1465 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Ishwari Das vs State Of Jharkhand on 13 February, 2024

Author: Navneet Kumar

Bench: Navneet Kumar

                                     1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                   Cr. Appeal(SJ)No. 815 of 2017
                               -----
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 18.04.2017 and order of sentence
dated 21.04.2017 passed in S.T No. 30A of 2008 arising out of G.R. Case No.
445 of 2006, corresponding to Balumath P.S. Case No. 68 of 2006 by the court
of Sri Umesh Nand Mishra, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Latehar)

1.Ishwari Das
2.Sunaiti Devi                                             --- --- Appellants

                                  Versus
State of Jharkhand                                         --- --- Respondent
                                         .......

For the Appellant                    : Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate
                                       Mr. Navin Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate
                                       Mrs. Nutan Kumari Sharma, Advocate

For the State                        : Mr. Azeemuddin, A.P.P.


                              PRESENT
                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

                              JUDGMENT

13.02.2024 This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 18.04.2017 and order of sentence dated 21.04.2017 passed in S.T No. 30A of 2008 arising out of G.R. Case No. 445 of 2006, corresponding to Balumath P.S. Case No. 68 of 2006 by the court of learned 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Latehar whereby and where under the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable Under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and a fine of Rs.5000/- u/s 306 of the IPC and R.I. for 3 years with a fine of Rs.3000/- u/s 498-A IPC and a default sentence of 6 months S.I.

2. The prosecution story arose on the basis of written report addressed to Officer-in-Charge, Balumath Police Station of Latehar district by the informant Chandrika Singh @ Kedar Pandey, which is as under:

The marriage of deceased Bimla Devi was solemnized with Ajay Kumar Das son of Ishwari Das of village Rahya P.S. Balumath in May 2002. Ajay Kumar the son-in-law of informant Chandrika Singh @ Kedar Pandey joined the Army as a government servant and used to

come home in holidays. The accused Ishwari Das and his wife began to torture the deceased Bimla Devi which was informed to his son Ajay Kumar Das by deceased Bimla Devi wife of aforesaid Ajay Kumar Das. The accused persons demanded cash Rs. 70,000/- vehicle, cow etc. which was written to informant through letter of deceased Bimla Devi. Also accused Ishwari Das did not allow any person to meet deceased Bimla Devi due to which family members of her Maika felt humiliation whenever they went to Sasural of deceased Bimla Devi. Sometimes the accused persons stopped supply of food to deceased Bimla Devi for non- payment of their dowry demand. Ultimately the accused Ishwari Das, his wife Sunaiti Devi and Ajay Kumar Das husband of the deceased Bimla Devi made conspiracy and pushed the deceased in well due to which she died. This whole story was narrated before Balumath P.S.I/C on basis of which Balumath PS case No.68/06 was registered under Section 304-B IPC on 30.09.2006. I.O investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet U/s 304B/34 IPC vide charge-sheet no.17 of 2007 dated 14.04.2007.

3. Learned C.J.M. took cognizance of the offence in this case and case was committed to the court of sessions. Learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Latehar had framed charge on 03.09.2013 against both the above named appellants under Section 304-B/34, 302/34 and 120-B of the IPC.

4. Statements of the accused persons were recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C in which they declined their complicity in the offence but did not produce any defence witness

5. The learned Trial Court after conducting the full-fledged trial passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as above, which is under challenge.

6. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

Arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellants:

7. At the outset it is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the appellants do not want to argue this case on the point of judgment of conviction i.e., on merit and therefore the arguments on behalf of the appellants is confined only on the point of sentence.

It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the appellants have

been convicted for the offence punishable Under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and a fine of Rs.5000/- u/s 306 of the IPC and R.I. for 3 years with a fine of Rs.3000/- u/s 498-A of the IPC and a default sentence of 6 months S.I.

8. It has been submitted that the appellant no.1 is the father-in-law being 82 years old and appellant no.2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased aged about 81 years over the period of time. It has been pointed out that occurrence is said to have taken place as far back as in the year 2006 and over a period of time they have become very old. It has further been pointed out that both the appellants have faced trial for the offence under Section 304B/34, 302/34 and 120B of the IPC but after trial the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 and 498A of the IPC. Further, it has been pointed out that the husband of the deceased was neither tried in this case nor he has been examined as a witness and there is nothing on record about any earlier case instituted by the deceased for causing torture or cruelty or harassment under Section 498-A of the IPC or any other matrimonial dispute. It is further pointed out that the informant i.e., father of the deceased Chandrika Singh @ Kedar Pandey has not been examined in this case, as evident from the impugned judgment. Further, it has been submitted that both the appellants have remained in jail for more than 1 year and therefore, taking into consideration this fact, particularly the age of both the appellants who are more than 80 years old, no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellants again in jail and therefore, it is prayed that the order of sentence may be suitably modified by imposing the sentence of imprisonment for the period already undergone by the appellants and further a suitable amount of fine may be imposed.

Arguments advanced on behalf of the State.

9. On the other hand learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and submitted that both the appellants have been convicted for the major offence punishable under Section 306 and 498 A of the IPC and the deceased has committed suicide because of the torture and cruelty alleged to have been caused to her for want of non-fulfillment of demand

of dowry and therefore, both the appellants do not deserve lenient view in awarding sentence. Further, it has been pointed out that the learned trial court has rightly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence based on the prosecution evidences, particularly the deposition of P.W.2 and P.W.3, who have supported the case of the prosecution. However, learned A.P.P. did not deny the fact that both the appellants have remained in jail for more than 1 year and appellant no.1 is about 82 years old and the appellant no.2 is 81 years old and therefore, it is submitted that since the appellants do not want to argue this case on the merit of the judgment of conviction, let the judgment of conviction be affirmed and the order of sentence may be suitably modified as the court may deems it fit.

Appraisal & Findings

10. Having heard the parties, perused the record of the case including the LCR.

11. It is found that the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable Under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and a fine of Rs.5000/- u/s 306 of the IPC and R.I. for 3 years with a fine of Rs.3000/- u/s 498-A of the IPC and a default sentence of 6 months S.I. It is further found that the appellants do not want to argue this case on merit i.e., on the point of judgment of conviction and confines his argument only on the point of sentence. It is further found that the maximum sentence awarded by the learned court below is of 5 years and the appellant has already remained in jail for a substantive period of time i.e., about 1 year. Further, it is found that appellants are ready to pay a suitable amount of fine as this Court deems it fit.

12. It further appears that both the appellants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased and are old persons aged about 82 years and 81 years respectively. From the impugned judgment, it is also found that the informant, who is the father of the deceased namely Chandrika Singh @ Kedar Pandey has not been examined in this case. Further, it is also found that the learned court below has particularly relied upon the letters written by the deceased but those letters were not written just before her death, rather, those letters were very old, written soon after

the marriage and therefore, it has been argued that proximity of demand of dowry and commission of offence of suicide by the deceased is not related to each other having no live link because of the substantive gap between the allegations of causing torturing and cruelty for demand of non-fulfillment of dowry and the death of the deceased. There is nothing on record to show any criminal history of the appellants.

13. In the aforesaid mitigating factors, it is found that no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellants again to the jail to serve the remaining period of sentence and therefore, it is found that the purpose of justice would be meted out if, instead of further sending the appellants to the jail to serve the remaining period of sentence of imprisonment, the sentence of fine is imposed in order to give it to the father of the deceased, although he was not examined / or any surviving close relative/ kith or kin.

14. Accordingly, this Court upholds the judgment of conviction dated 18.04.2017 passed in S.T No. 30A of 2008 arising out of G.R. Case No. 445 of 2006, corresponding to Balumath P.S. Case No. 68 of 2006 by the court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Latehar and alters the order of sentence dated 21.04.2017 under which the appellants are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a term of the period already undergone by them and further, in the interest of justice, the appellants are sentenced to pay the fine of a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) collectively under both the heads including 306 and 498A IPC in order to give it to the father of the victim Chandrika Singh @ Kedar Pandey/ any other close relative.

15. Since the appellants are on bail and therefore, a time of four months is given to the appellants to pay the aforesaid fine and in default of payment of fine each of the appellant is to undergo R.I. for a period of 2 years collectively under both counts jointly. The appellants may deposit the fine amount through the Nazarat of the concerned Civil Court.

16. The learned trial court is directed to ensure that the said fine amount is deposited within the stipulated period of time and if the same is not deposited by the appellants, then they will serve the sentence as awarded in case of default of payment of fine by taking all necessary

measures as per the provisions of law.

17. The appellants have been allowed to deposit the said fine amount through the Nazarat of the concerned Civil Court and the moment appellants deposit the fine amount, they shall be released and/ discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds accordingly in this case.

18. The learned court below is also directed that on deposit of the said fine amount by the appellants, a notice be sent to the father of the victim Chandrika Singh @ Kedar Pandey and on his appearance the said fine amount, if so deposited by the appellants, shall be disbursed to him. In case, the said victim is not traceable or not available or not found at the given address, or does not appear before the Court, the same shall be disbursed to the close or near relatives or kith and kin of the said victim or else, as the concerned learned trial court may deem fit and proper, and in this regard the Court concerned may also involve the Para Legal Volunteer (PLV) of District Legal services Authority (DLSA), Latehar, if required and the Secretary, D.L.S.A., Latehar is directed to co-operate in this regard.

19. This Criminal Appeal is dismissed with modification in the order of sentence.

20. Let the Lower Court Records and the copy of judgment be also transmitted to the learned Court below for its compliance in letter and spirit.

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

A.Mohanty Jhakrhand High Court Dated 13th February, 2024