Jharkhand High Court
Abdul Hanan And Another vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr on 5 September, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 1362 of 2019
Abdul Hanan and another ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Anr.
... ... Opposite Parties
With
Cr. Rev. No. 1361 of 2019
Md. Nasiruddin ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Anr.
... ... Opposite Parties
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avishek Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Ruby Pandey, APP
: Mr. Naveen Kr. Ganjhu, APP
For the Opposite party No.2: Mr. S.K. Roy, Advocate
---
10/05.09.2024 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
2. This revision has been filed against judgment dated 13.08.2019
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge - I, Giridih in Criminal
Appeal No.73 of 2018, arising out of judgment and conviction dated
19.05.2018 passed in T.R. No.915 of 2018, arising out of Bengabad
P.S. Case No.34 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. Case No.618 of 2015,
whereby the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal and
affirmed the judgment of conviction dated 19.05.2018 passed in T.R.
No.915 of 2018. The trial court has convicted the petitioners for
offence under section 498A of IPC and has sentenced the petitioners
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay fine of
Rs.1,000/- each with default sentence.
3. Two revisions have been filed; Cr. Revision No.1361 of 2019
has been filed by the husband and Cr. Revision No. 1362 of 2019 has
been filed by the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the informant.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the
impugned judgments, has submitted that the impugned judgments are
perverse and call for interference. He has submitted that there has
been repeated cases and counter cases between the parties and on each
occasion, there was compromise and the informant of the case went to
her matrimonial house.
5. He has submitted that these cases arise out of a complaint case
which was sent for investigation by the police. He has referred to
complaint petition of the informant and submitted that she has stated
that there was demand of Rs.20,000, colour mobile with camera. The
cause of action to file the complaint arose with the allegation that
there was a demand of Rs.50,000/- on 03.02.2015 and it was asserted
that in the Anjuman, the accused persons had stated that unless
Rs.50,000 is paid, they will not take the informant. The learned
counsel submits that none of the witnesses have whispered a word in
connection with demand of Rs.50,000 in Anjuman, which was said to
be held on 03.02.2015. He has further submitted that in one of the
cases being Complaint Case No.647 of 2010, the petitioners were
acquitted on merits as well as on compromise.
6. The learned counsel submits that the witnesses in the cross-
examination have not stated regarding the year and date on which the
alleged demand was made from the informant of the case or her
family members. Rather, they have specifically stated that they do not
remember the date and year of the demand. He has also stated that
PW4 who is the informant of the case stated that when she became
pregnant on second time, she was sent to her parents for delivery, and
thereafter, the petitioners had filed a case for her vidai which was
apparently on account of restitution of conjugal rights and she has
stated that after she was taken back, she was thrown out from her
matrimonial house and she was also deprived of food and clothes.
7. The learned counsel has submitted that altogether three
children were born out of wedlock which the complainant has stated
in paragraph 11 of her examination-in-chief. The learned counsel
submits that PW4 in her cross-examination has also failed to give the
date of birth of the three children and with regard to demand of
Rs.20,000 and color mobile with camera, she had stated that since she
is illiterate, she did not remember the date of such demand.
8. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioners were
already subjected to trial on account of the demand of Rs.20,000/- and
mobile phone and were acquitted vide judgment dated 15.04.2014 on
account of compromise and also that the prosecution had not
supported the case. He submits that, on the same allegation, the
petitioners could not be subjected to another trial. The learned counsel
has also submitted that the allegations remaining the same and the
prosecution witnesses having failed to give the date of such demand
etc., the prosecution has failed to prove that there was any torture or
demand after the acquittal in the previous criminal case.
9. The learned counsel has further submitted that the investigating
officer of the case has also not been examined in the present case,
which has prejudiced the case of the petitioners to a great extent.
10. The learned counsel submits that a plea was raised before the
Trial Court and the Appellate Court by referring to Section 300
Cr.P.C. to submit that, for the same offence, a person cannot be tried
twice. He submits that, in view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, the impugned judgments call for interference.
11. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party
No.2, has opposed the prayer and submitted that there are concurrent
findings recorded by both the Courts and there is no scope for re-
appreciation of materials on record and coming to a different finding
in Revisional Jurisdiction. He submits that the conduct of the
petitioners shows that they have been taking back the opposite party
no.2 time and again on the basis of compromise and each time they
have been throwing her out of her matrimonial house by torture and
depriving her of living condition. He has also submitted that it has
come in evidence that the husband had also performed second
marriage. However, during the course of argument it is not in dispute
that during the evidence, none of the witnesses have mentioned about
demand of Rs.50,000/- at Anjuman.
12. The learned counsel has submitted that the conviction has been
based on the materials on record and basic ingredients for offence
under section 498A IPC was duly satisfied and therefore the impugned
judgments do not call for any interference. He has submitted that non-
examination of the investigating officer has not prejudiced the
petitioners in as much as the victim and her family members have duly
supported the case and they have been duly cross-examined.
13. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that the learned
Courts have not specifically mentioned as to whether they have
convicted the petitioners by referring to Explanation (a) or
Explanation (b) of Section 498A. The learned counsel has submitted
that there is consistent evidence on record to show that the opposite
party No. 2 was deprived of food and clothes, and such torture will
certainly come under the Explanation (a) of 498A of the Indian Penal
Code. She has submitted that the demand of money was also fully
supported by all the prosecution witnesses and merely because they
have not been able to tell the date of such demand, is not fatal to the
prosecution case. The opposite party no.2 has been examined as PW4
and she has stated that she being an illiterate lady, she could not
disclose the date of such demand and could not even disclose the date
of birth of her three children. The learned counsel has also submitted
that torture of the opposite party no.2 is a continuous cause of action
and since beginning she has been tortured and repeatedly thrown out
of her matrimonial home and on each occasion, the petitioners have
taken her back through compromise but ultimately, she was thrown
out of her matrimonial home.
14. Judgement reserved.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav
