Ramchandra Singh @ Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 5631 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Ramchandra Singh @ Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 June, 2024

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

                     Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 270 of 2011

           [Against the judgment of conviction dated and order of sentence dated
           28.02.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Trial No.232
           of 2009]

           1. Ramchandra Singh @ Ram
           2. M Lalita Devi @ Maya Devi
           3. Vijay Ram @ Vijay Singh          ....     ....   ....    Appellants
                                     --Versus--
           The State of Jharkhand               ....      ....     .... Respondent

           For the Appellants       : Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, Advocate
                                      Ms. Mridula Thakur, Advocate
           For the State            : Mr. Azeemuddin, A.P.P.
                                    -----

PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

By Court A counter affidavit has been filed by the Sub Inspector, Pathargama, P.S. Godda wherein it has been stated that the appellant- M Lalita Devi @ Maya Devi has died long back and death certificate has also been issued by the Mukhiya in this regard.

Under the circumstance, the appeal preferred by M Lalita Devi @ Maya Devi is dismissed as abated.

1. Appellants have been convicted under Section 498A/34 of the IPC and appellant Vijay Ram @ Vijay Singh is separately convicted under 307 of the IPC. Judgment of conviction and sentence under Sections 307 and 498/34 of the Indian Penal Code is under challenge in this criminal appeal. Appellant no.1- Ram Chandra Ram @ Ram Singh is father-in-law, appellant no.3- Vijay Ram @ Vijay Singh is the husband of the informant Paira Devi who lodged FIR on 25.12.2008.

2. As per the FIR, she was married to Vijay Ram six years ago. It is alleged that since the time of her marriage, she was being subjected to cruelty in reference to unlawful dowry demand of T.V. On 23.12.2008 at about 8 O' Clock in the night, she had an altercation with her mother-in-law (since deceased) with regard to demand of dowry. In the meantime, her husband came there and he tied her to the pillar and later on, she was assaulted by Ajay Ram, Sanjay Ram and Maya Devi with Danda resulting in injury in her both hands and on her right leg. On hulla, neighbors collected there and rescued

her. A Panchayti was held in this regard on 25.12.2008 and there she and her father were assaulted by hammer and iron rod resulting in profuse bleeding.

3. On the basis of fardbeyan of victim recorded at Sadar Hospital on 25.12.2008, Pathargama P.S. Case No.216 of 2008 was registered under Sections 341, 342, 323, 307, 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Police on investigation, found the case true and submitted charge sheet under Sections 341, 323, 307, 498A, 342/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against Ajay Ram and other family members who were put on trial for committing offence under these Sections.

4. Altogether nine witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution and after prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Sections 313 of the IPC. The defence is of innocence.

5. Vijay Ram has stated that he was also assaulted by the informant party. Following documentary evidences have been adduced on behalf of defence:

Exhibit A is certified copy of FIR of Pathargama P.S. Case No.215 of 2008. Exhibit B is certified copy of order sheets of G.R. No.1492 of 2008. Exhibit C series are the depositions of witnesses recorded in that case.

Accused no.1 is father-in-law of present informant Pairo Devi, accused no.2 was the mother-in-law and other accused persons are the brothers-in-law of Pairo Devi.

6. Judgment of conviction and sentence has been assailed by the learned counsel on behalf of appellants on the ground that all the witnesses are interested witnesses related to the prosecutrix and no independent witness has come to support the prosecution case.

7. As a matter of fact, wife of appellant no.1, Lalita Devi had lodged Pathargama P.S. Case No.215 of 2008 under Sections 341, 323, 448, 504/34 of Indian Penal Code against Rajpati Singh and five others. It is also argued that no offence under Section 307 of the IPC will be made out as the injuries sustained were superficial and simple in nature. The Doctor in this case has been examined as P.W. 7 and the injury reports have been marked as Exhibit 4 series. All these injuries were simple in nature.

8. I find much force in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants that no offence under Section 307 of the IPC is made out for which an intention to cause death is essential ingredient of the offence. The intention of

a person is to be inferred from the nature of injury and the part of body on which the said injury is caused. Considering the nature of injury being simple, requisite intention of causing death is not at all proved. There are materials for proving charge under Section 323 of the IPC.

9. As far as Section 498A of the IPC is concerned, it is argued by the learned counsel that it was a case of minor matrimonial discord and no complaint at any quarter had been given earlier with regard to victim being subjected to cruelty. One incidence of altercation is not sufficient to make out an offence under Section 498A of the IPC.

10. Learned A.P.P. defended the judgment of conviction and sentence.

11. In order to prove charge under Section 498A of the IPC, it incumbent upon the prosecution to establish the cruelty as defined under the said Section which is as under:-

For the purposes of this section, "cruelty means"--

(a) any wilful 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 of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.]

12. In order to prove the charge under Section 498A IPC, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish that (a) victim was a married lady, (b) she was subjected to cruelty by her husband or relative of her husband, (c) that such cruelty consisted of either harassment of the woman in reference to an unlawful demand or a willful conduct of such a nature as is likely to lead the lady to commit suicide or cause grave injury to her life, limb or health, (d) such injury may be physical or mental. It has been held in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 :

"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."

13. I find much force in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that one such incidence will not make out an offence under Section 498A of the IPC unless there is some history of cruelty meted out to the victim in

reference to such a demand. The injury of more than one person supports the defence version that informant party had come prepared for the show down in which free fight took place and not only the informant but also her brother and her father were also assaulted and received injury. The very presence in the matrimonial home of the brothers and family members of the informant lends credence to the defence version that it was not a one sided affair, and but both sides had entered into the free fight regarding which appellant no.2 (since deceased) had also lodged a criminal case against the father of the prosecutrix and her brothers. On these evidences, conviction under Section 498A of the IPC is not sustainable and is accordingly, set aside.

14. The appellants assaulted the prosecutrix and her father which is proved by the injury reports marked as Exhibit 4 series. However, the appellants are convicted for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC.

15. There is no past conviction proved against the appellants. Accordingly, they are extended to benefits under Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act and are directed to be released on admonition.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed with modification in finding and sentence.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, 12th June, 2024 AFR/Anit