Upendra Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 1575 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Upendra Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 February, 2024

Author: Navneet Kumar

Bench: Navneet Kumar

                                          1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         Cr. Revision No. 791 of 2020
     Upendra Ram                                             --- --- Petitioner
                                     Versus
     1.The State of Jharkhand
     2. Sheela Devi                                   --- --- Opposite Parties
                                            .......

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar No.2, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P. For the O.P No.2 : Mr. Ranjit Kumar Tiwari, Advocate

06/16.02.2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 assisted by the learned A.P.P.

2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 21.12.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2018 whereby and where under the learned appellate court below i.e., Additional Sessions Judge-III, Palamau at Daltonganj has affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.05.2018 passed in Complaint Case No. 813A of 2004 corresponding to Trial No. 1699 of 2018 by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years with a fine of Rs.5000 and a default sentence of S.I. for 3 months.

3. The case of the complainant/ opposite party no2 is based on the complainant case No. 813A of 2004 and the gist of the allegations is as under:

Complainant's marriage was solemnized with Upendra Ram according to Hindu Rites and Customs on 17.05.2001. It has further been alleged that, her father has gifted cash Rs. 41,000/-; TV worth Rs 2600; Philips Radio worth Rs. 900; HMT sona of worth Rs. 800/-; Bucket Set of worth Rs. 3095/-; from batuwa Rs. 5090/- and other goods worth of Rs. 5000 at the time of marriage. It has been alleged that, at the time of Bidai accused persons pressurized her father for additional Rs.50000/- and a motorcycle. After intervention of well-wishers of both sides accused persons brought her to her matrimonial house at Bakoiya. It has been further alleged that, all accused persons snatched her ornaments and stridhan. It has been alleged that, cruel behavior of accused persons regularly increased; meanwhile her husband went to Punjab for job. Further it has been alleged that, due to bad behavior of her in-laws she

went to her father's home, thereafter, she gave an application to Sadar Thana, Daltonganj. It has been further alleged that they went to Jalhandhar at Punjab where they came to know that, Upendra Ram worked for Sardar Kundan Singh. It has been further stated that, due to intervention of neighbors Upendra Ram became ready to keep her with himself. It has been further alleged that, he regularly used to assault her. It has been alleged that, her husband was in illegal relationship with another girl and when she asked about that, then her husband assaulted her. It has been alleged that, on dated 20.11.04 her husband at midnight poured kerosene oil on her body and set her on fire. It has been stated that, neighbors saved her life. It has been further alleged that, forcibly her husband got her genetic test and told to her that, this is baby girl and he wants a boy so kill her. It has been further alleged that, again on 30.11.04 her husband brought another woman to home and said to her that, he will marry with her and will kill the complainant. It has been further alleged that, the husband of complainant brought her to Bakoiya on 10.12.2004 and all accused persons started to torture her. It has been further alleged that, on 22.12.2004 all accused person forcibly brought her to Dr. Dora's Nursing Home and said to her to get abortion and when complainant refused and informed to her parents, accused persons left her at Nursing home and fled away. When her parents reached at there, then she came to her paternal home and residing with her parents.

Accordingly, the complainant Shila Devi has filed Compliant Case No. 813-A of 2004 against the accused persons namely Upendra Ram, Bijaymal Ram, Sumitra Devi Mamta Devi, Sunaina Devi, Mahabir Ram, Ravindra Ram, Kanti Devi , Harihar Ram and Ram Autar Ram above u/s 120 B, 498A, 323,406,379, and 307 of IPC and 3/4 of the Prohibition of Dowry Prohibition Act before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau which was registered as this complaint case on 23.12.2004. Thereafter, upon inquiry a prima-facie case u/s 498 A of IPC and u/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been found against the accused persons named above on 15.03.05.

It is necessary to mention here that, due to absence of accused persons namely Upendra Ram, Bijaymal Ram, Sumitra Devi, Mamta Devi, Sunaina Devi, Harihar Ram and Ramavtar Ram, they were declared absconder vide order dated 18.06.09 and their case record was separated from original case record. Then trial proceeded against three

accused persons namely Kanti Devi, Ravindra Ram and Mahabir Ram and disposed of on 25.01.2016. Record of other accused namely Harihar Ram and Ramavtar Ram has been separated since they are absconding and accused namely Upendra Ram, Bijaymal Ram, Sumitra Devi. Mamta Devi and Sunaina Devi have faced trail.

4. After appearance of the accused persons, on 20.08.2015 charge has been framed u/s 498 A of the IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against all above named accused persons and explained in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After closure the evidence of complainant, statement of accused persons u/s 313 of Cr.P.C has been recorded on dated 05.06.17, on which they completely denied the complainant's case and claimed themselves to be innocent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned trial court after conducting the trial vide judgment dated 07.05.2018 acquitted co-accused persons namely Bijaymal Ram, Sumitra Devi, Sunaina Devi and Mamta Devi for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and section 4 of the D.P. Act, however, convicted the petitioner husband Upendra Ram for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and accordingly sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 2 years with a fine of Rs.5000/- and a default sentence of S.I. for 2 months, which is also under challenge.

Petitioner being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 36 of 2018, which was dismissed by the learned appellate court below i.e., Additional Sessions Judge-III, Palamau at Daltonganj vide judgment dated 21.12.2019 and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court i.e., Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj dated 07.05.2018 has been affirmed and hence the instant criminal revision.

6. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner does not want to argue this case on the point of judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned Appellate court below and confines his argument only on the point of order of sentence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the court below have committed a gross error in passing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and affirming it

thereafter by the learned appellate court below in view of the fact that the cause of action has arisen in the jurisdiction of the State of Punjab as evident from the deposition of the complainant (CW.1) and the other witnesses like CW.2, CW.3, C.W.4 but both the learned courts below did not heed to this version and wrongly entertained the complaint filed by the opposite party no.2 and passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Further, it has been pointed out that all the co- accused persons including father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law have been acquitted and only the petitioner-husband has been convicted. Further it is also submitted that the complainant-wife (Opposite Party no.2) had willingly left her matrimonial house and she has performed another marriage with the brother-in-law of her sister at Mirzapur ( Uttar Pradesh). Further, it has also been pointed out that this petitioner has already remained in jail during course of the criminal proceeding for about 1 year 2 months and 8 days out of the maximum sentence of 2 years and therefore, it is submitted that instead of sending the petitioner again to the jail to serve the remaining part of the sentence it would be appropriate under the circumstances of the case to modify the order of sentence by passing the order of sentence of imprisonment for the period already undergone by him and a suitable amount of fine may be imposed by way of compensation to be given to the victim i.e., opposite party no.2, for which the petitioner is ready to pay.

7. On the other hand learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.P.P. have opposed the contentions raised by the petitioner and submitted that the opposite party no.2 has got a child also and both courts have held that petitioner is guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and therefore, he does not deserve any lenient view in passing the order of sentence. However, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.P.P. do not controvert the fact that petitioner has remained in jail for about 1 year 2 months and 8 days. Further, it is pointed out that the victim - opposite party no.2 has a daughter about 5-6 years old born from the wedlock with this petitioner and therefore, petitioner is under obligation to look after the daughter and in this view of the matter, since the petitioner does not want to argue on the point of judgment of conviction and therefore, after upholding the judgment of conviction, a suitable order may be passed on point of imposing fine so that opposite party no.2 may get a

substantive amount of compensation by way of fine.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of the case including the lower court record.

9. It is found that the petitioner has been found guilty by both the courts i.e., the trial court and lower appellate court for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years with a fine of Rs.5000/- and a default sentence of S.I. for 3 months. Since the petitioner does not want to argue this case on the point of merit of the judgment of conviction and therefore, this Court does not want to go into the merit of the case.

10. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 07.05.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj in Complaint Case No. 813A of 2004 and the judgment of affirmation by the learned appellate court of Additional Sessions Judge- III, Palamau at Daltonganj for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC is upheld. So far as order of sentence is concerned, it is found that petitioner has remained in jail for about 1 year 2 months 8 days against the maximum sentence of 2 years. Further, it is also found that since 2004 when the complainant case was registered the petitioner has been suffering the trauma, misery and harassment of criminal prosecution for such a long period of time of about 20 years and therefore no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner again to the jail to serve the remaining part of the sentence. Therefore, it is found just and proper that justice would be meted out if the order of sentence is modified to the extent that petitioner is sentenced to the period already undergone by him and to sentence him to pay a suitable amount of fine by way of compensation to be paid to the victim - opposite party no.2.

11. Accordingly, the order of sentence dated 07.05.2018 passed by the learned court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj in Complaint Case No. 813 A/2004 is modified by imposing the sentence of imprisonment for a term of the period already undergone by petitioner. Further, the petitioner is imposed with a sentence of fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) by way of compensation in order to give it to the victim - complainant (opposite party no.2).

12. Since the petitioner is on bail and therefore, a time of 3 months is

given to the petititoner to pay the aforesaid fine and in default of payment of fine he is directed to undergo S.I. for a period of 1 year. The appellant may deposit the fine amount through the Nazarat of the concerned Civil Court.

13. 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 petitioner, then he 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.

14. The petitioner has been allowed to deposit the said fine amount through the Nazarat of the concerned Civil Court and the moment petitioner deposits the fine amount, he shall be released and/ discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds accordingly in this case.

15. The learned court below is also directed that on deposit of the said fine amount by the petitioner, a notice be sent to the opposite party no.2 Sheela Devi and on her appearance the said fine amount, if so deposited by the petitioner, shall be disbursed to her. 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), Palamau at Daltonganj, if required and the Secretary, D.L.S.A., Palamau at Daltongaj is directed to co- operate in this regard.

16. This Criminal Revision is dismissed with the modification in the order of sentence.

17. 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