Jharkhand High Court
Prahlad Das vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 February, 2025
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1360 of 2006
-----
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.08.2006
passed in Session Trial Case No.33 of 1998, arising out of Harla P.S. Case No.
54/1997, G.R. No. 590 of 1997 by the Court of Learned Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Bokaro, Jharkhand)
1. Prahlad Das, son of Late Jyoti Das, aged about 55 years,
2. Raju Das, son of Shri Prahlad Das, aged about 30 years,
3. Bhadu Bala Devi, wife of Shri Prahlad Das, aged about 50 years,
All residents of Panchoura, P.S.-Harla, Distt.-Bokaro (Jharkhand)
--- --- Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
------
For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P.
JUDGMENT
28.02.2025 This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 14.08.2006 passed in Session Trial Case No.33
of 1998, arising out of Harla P.S. Case No. 54/1997, G.R. No. 590 of
1997 by the Court of Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Court-IV, Bokaro whereby and where under the appellants have
been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC
and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years under Section
498-A of the IPC.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that the informant of this case
Chinta Devi, D/o Nimai Chandra Dey, resident of village Bandhdih, P.S.
Jaridih, Dist. Bokaro, gave a written report to the officer-in-charge Harla
P.S., stating therein that on 10.5.1996, she was married with Raju Das,
son of Prahalad Das, resident of village Panchoura, P.S. Harla, Dist.
Bokaro. After marriage she lived at village Panchoura with her husband.
After some times of marriage, her husband started remaining angry with
her and also started assaulting her. Besides her husband, her father-in-
law Prahalad Das and her mother-in-law Bhadu Bala started abusing her
and used to assault her. Her husband Raju Das used to tell her that unless
she brought Rs. 20000/- from her parent's house, he would not keep her
in his house, 8 days back, her mother-in-law injured her on cheek by
heated Tawa (Iran plate) used for making bread/roti, due to which there
is scar mark on her cheek and on her both hands. Her husband assaulted
her with lathi, due to which she got injured. Her father-in-law also
assisted them in getting her assaulted and being burnt. On the night of
25/26-5-97, her husband inserted clothes in her mouth and her mother-
in-law sprinkled kerosene oil on her body and her father-in-law tried to
inflame her by igniting match box. Her Saari caught fire but she
removed her Saari and ran outside. Today at 6.00 a.m. all the three
persons caught hold of her and assaulted her with lathi. This has been
witnessed by Birbal Manjhi, Radha Das and some females.
3. On the receipt of the written report of the Informant, the police
instituted a case as Harla P.S. case No. 54/97 dated. 26.05.1997 u/s
498A/324/307 of IPC and u/s 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
against all the three named accused persons i.e. 1. Raju Das 2. Prahalad
Das and 3. Bhadu Bala, all resident of Pachaura, P.S. Harla, District,
Bokaro.
4. Thereafter the police started investigation and after finding the
case true filed charge-sheet no. 58/97 on 30.06.1997 under the aforesaid
sections against all the three accused persons. The case diary alongwith
the charge sheet was perused by the learned CJM, who found prima
facie case u/s 498-A, 324 and 307 IPC and 3 & 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act against all the three named accused persons in the FIR,
Hence, on 17.7.97, he took cognizance of the offence under the aforesaid
sections against the all the three accused persons. The case was
registered as G.R. case no. 590/1997. The case being sessions triable
case was committed to the court of sessions on 17.01.1998 for trial and
disposal. Learned District & Sessions Judge Bokaro had framed charge
under section 307, 498-A of IPC & under section 3 of Dowry Prohibition
Act. The charge was read over and explained to the accused persons in
Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The learned court below after conducting the full-fledged trial
passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence,
which is under challenge in this appeal.
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1360 of 2006
6. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned A.P.P.
for the State.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellants:
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted
that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider the entire evidence on
record merely on extraneous ground.
7.1. It has further been submitted that the impugned judgment and the
order of conviction is based on conjectures and surmises and the learned
trial court has wrongly relied upon the testimony of the witnesses and
failed to take into account that there is no independent witness to support
the prosecution case save and except the relatives of the informant.
7.2. It is also submitted that the no original injury report is on record
and it casts doubt over the prosecution case.
7.3. It has further been pointed out that learned trial court has
completely failed to consider that there is no evidence on record that the
appellants have ever treated the informant with cruelty.
7.4. Further it is submitted that the I.O. of this case has not been
examined hence an adverse inference may be drawn against the
prosecution and the learned trial court wrongly held that the appellants
have caused torture to the informant and merely based on the conviction
in some other case cannot sustain.
7.5. It is submitted that there is no witness to substantiate that the
appellants had poured kerosene oil on the informant to burn her, nor
there is any witness to substantiate the version of the informant that the
Saari of the informant was ignited by the appellants and she ran out of
her house without her Sarri and in this view of the submissions, the
learned trial court has overlooked the fact that during the pendency of
the trial, a joint compromise petition dated 12.06.2001 signed by the
informant as well as by the appellant was filed before the learned trial
court and there are several discrepancies in the evidence of the P.W.-1
and P.W.-2 and as such the benefit of doubt be given to the appellants.
7.6. It has also been submitted that the prosecution witnesses are
interested witnesses as they are relatives of the informant and the
allegations are omnibus in nature.
3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1360 of 2006
7.7. It has further been contended that no specific question has been
put to the appellants at the time of recording their statements under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. and no ingredients of Section 498-A is available on
record to support the prosecution version of the case and such the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is illegal,
arbitrary, perverse and contrary to law as well as on the facts and
circumstances of the case and as such the impugned judgment of
conviction & order of sentence is liable to be set aside.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the State.
8. On the other hand, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the
State has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the Appellants
and stated the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidences
in passing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
and therefore the present appeal is devoid of merit and hence fit to be
dismissed but did not controvert this fact that the joint compromise
petition was filed.
Appraisal & Findings
9. Having heard the parties, perused the record of the case including
the impugned judgment, depositions of all the witnesses and other
materials available on record.
10. In order to prove its case, prosecution has been able to examine
altogether 3 witnesses who are as under:
1. P.W.1-Nemai Dey (father of the informant)
2. P.W.2-Naresh Chandra Dey (brother of the informant)
3. P.W.3-Ragho Das (brother of the appellant no. 1)
11. Apart from the oral evidences, the prosecution has proved some
documentary evidences also which are as under: -
Exhibit-1- Signature of Raju Das on compromise petition.
Exhibit-1/1- Signature of Raju Das on compromise petition.
Exhibit -1/2-Signature of Narayan Pal on compromise petition
Exhibit-1/3- Signature of Mahabir Pal on compromise petition
Exhibit-1/4- Signature of Laxmikant Pal on compromise petition
Exhibit-2- Written Report
Exhibit-3 Endorsement on written report.
Exhibit-4 Judgment of sessions Trial No. 143/02.
No witness was examined on behalf of the defence nor any document was
4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1360 of 2006
filed.
12. The first prosecution witness examined on behalf of the
prosecution is P.W.-1 Nemai Dey who is the father of the deceased girl.
In his statement before the Court, he has stated that her daughter had told
him that after one and half year of her marriage, her husband and parent-
in-law started telling her to bring money from her Maiyke. Her food was
reduced and she was being tortured and assaulted by them.
13. P.W.-2 Naresh Chandra Dey is the brother of the informant. It
was he who had gone to the police station along with the informant to
institute the case. On the dictation of the informant, this witness had
written the written report. In his deposition he has stated that शादी के बाद
मेरी बहन ससरु ाऱ में रहने ऱगी । मेरी बहन शादी के बाद ससरु ाऱ से हमारे यहाॉ
जाती थी और कहती थी कक उसका पतत, ससुर और सास उसको बहुत तॊग करती
है । उनऱोग ने मेरी बहन से 20 हजार रु की माॊग करते थे और नही दे ने पर
मारपीट करते थे । पैसा नहीॊ दे ने पर उसकी सास ने गरम तावा से उसके गाऱ को
जऱा ददया और दोनो हाथ को भी जऱा ददया । उसकी सास और राजू दास ने
उसके शरीर पर ककरासन तेऱ तिड़क ददया था उसको मारने के लऱए ।
Thus, he has stated that her sister was burnt on her hand and on her
cheeks by the accused persons. The accused persons had gone to the
extent of burning the informant by putting kerosene oil on her. P.W.-2 in
his deposition has stated that he had gone to the police station alongwith
his sister Chinta Devi to institute this case. On the dictation of her sister,
this witness wrote down the written report which is in his handwriting.
After the written report was dictated then Chinta Devi put her LTI on the
same and P.W.2 put his signature on the written report as a writer and
witness to the written report. P.W.2 has proved this written report which is
marked as Ext.2.
14. P.W.-3 is Ragho Das who is the brother of accused Prahalad Das
and in nearest relative of the family members of the Sasural of the
informant. The above allegation on the accused persons has also been
substantiated by the evidence of this witness. This witness has also fully
supported the case of the prosecution and have confirmed in his statement
5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1360 of 2006
before the Court that the informant Chinta Devi was being tortured and
assaulted at the hands of the accused persons for the non-fulfilment of
demand of dowry of Rs. 20,000/- by the accused persons. He has stated
that चचॊता दे वी एक ददन शाम में चल्ू हा के पास रोटी बना रही थी कक राजू दास,
प्रहऱाद दास चचॊता दे वी को पकड़ लऱए और प्रहऱाद दास की पत्नी भाद ु बाऱा दे वी
ने गमम ताई को चचॊता दे वी गाऱ और पैर के ठे हुना में सटा दी । जजससे गाऱ पर
फोका हो गया और ज़ख्म पहुचा ।
15. In view of the aforesaid appraisal of the testimonies of the
witnesses and other evidences available on record, this Court comes to a
finding that the Learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the
testimonies of the witnesses and there is no illegality in the appreciation
of evidences and passing the judgment of conviction for the offence
punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC against these appellants.
16. Accordingly, this Court upholds the judgment of conviction dated
14.08.2006 passed in Session Trial Case No.33 of 1998, arising out of
Harla P.S. Case No. 54/1997, G.R. No. 590 of 1997 by the Court of
Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV,
Bokaro, Jharkhand for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of
the IPC against these appellants.
17. So far as sentence is concerned, it is found that the incident has
taken place as far back as in the year 1996 when the quarrel between the
parties arose in the wake of demand dowry. Further it is found that all
the appellants have been suffering from the trauma and misery of the
criminal prosecution for a long period of time i.e. since last 28 years.
18. Further, it appears from the record that Appellant No.1 Prahlad
Das remained in custody for about 5 Months 03 Days; Appellant No.2
Raju Das remained in custody for about 4 Months 28 days; and
Appellant No.3 Bhadu Bala remained in custody for about 5 Months 05
days. Further, it is also found that the appellants are ready to pay the fine
by way of compensation in order to give to the close relative of the
victim, since victim/informant Chinta Devi had died.
19. Further, it has been pointed out that Appellant No.1 Prahlad Das
has reached to age of 73 years; Appellant No.2 Raju Das has reached to
6 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1360 of 2006
age of 48 years; and Appellant No.3 Bhadu Bala have reached to the age
of 68 years and in this view of the matter it has been prayed to modify to
the order of sentence. In view of the above mitigating circumstances, it
is found just and fair that the purpose of justice would be served in
awarding the sentence of fine by way of compensation instead of
awarding the sentence of further imprisonment to the appellants.
20. In the backdrop, this Court thinks that purpose of justice would be
served if the appellants are sentenced to the imprisonment for the period
already undergone by him and a sentence of fine is imposed upon the
appellants collectively in order to give it to the father of the
victim/deceased i.e. P.W. 1 Nemai Dey.
21. In this view of the matter, the order of sentence dated 14.08.2006
passed in Session Trial Case No.33 of 1998, arising out of Harla P.S.
Case No. 54/1997, G.R. No. 590 of 1997 by the Court of Learned
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Bokaro is set
aside.
22. In result, the appellants are awarded the sentence of imprisonment
for a term of period already undergone by them and further all the three
appellants are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand
Only) to be paid by each of the appellant by way of compensation in
order to give it to the father of the victim-P.W.1-Nemai Dey and in case
of default of payment of fine, each of the appellant is directed to undergo
R.I. of 2 (two) years.
23. As evident from the record that out of three appellants, one of the
appellants namely Prahlad Das is in jail and therefore this appellant is
directed to be released forthwith if the fine amount i.e. a sum of Rs.
10,000/- (Ten Thousand Only) is paid by him in order to give it to the
father of the victim (P.W.1).
24. Further, it appears that although a direction was given by this
Court to take every coercive steps for the arrest of the appellants and
after their custody, they were directed to take proper steps for hearing of
this appeal and pursuant to the said order dated 21.11.2024 of this Court,
one of the appellants namely Prahlad Das (appellant no. 1) has been
arrested on 01.02.2025 but for the rest of the two appellants namely Raju
7 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1360 of 2006
Das (appellant no. 2) and Bhadu Bala Devi (appellant No. 3), execution
report from the concerned police station was not received by the
concerned learned trial Court as evident from the letter dated 01.02.2025
from the concerned learned trial Court i.e. in-charge Addl. Sessions
Judge, FTC-IV, Bokaro.
25. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid fact, the concerned learned
trial Court is directed to ensure that pursuant to the order dated
21.11.2024 of this Court, execution report be received at the earliest with
respect to the execution of arrest warrant and after the arrest, they shall
be released forthwith, if the rest of the two appellants namely Raju Das
(appellant no. 2) and Bhadu Bala Devi (appellant No. 3) deposit the fine
amount i.e. a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by each of the appellants as per the
order of sentence by this Court in order to give it to the father of the
victim (P.W.1) Nemai Dey.
26. The learned Trial Court is directed to take all necessary steps to
ensure that the said fine amount is deposited by each of the appellant and
if the same is not deposited by the appellants, then they will serve the
sentences as awarded in case of default of payment of fine by taking all
necessary measures as per the provisions of law.
27. The appellants are allowed to deposit the said fine amount
through the Nazarat of the concerned Civil Court and the moment the
appellants deposit the fine amount, they shall be released forthwith.
28. The learned trial court is also directed that on deposit of the said
fine amount by each of the appellants, a notice be sent to the to the father
of the victim/deceased i.e. P.W. 1 Nemai Dey and on his appearance the
said fine amount, if so, deposited by the appellants, shall be disbursed to
him. In case, the father of the victim/deceased i.e. P.W. 1 Nemai Dey is
not traceable or not available or not found at the given address, or does
not appear before the learned trial Court, the same shall be disbursed to
the close or near relatives or kith and kin of the father of the
victim/deceased i.e. P.W. 1 Nemai Dey 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), Bokaro, if required and the Secretary,
8 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1360 of 2006
D.L.S.A., Bokaro is directed to co-operate in this regard.
29. In result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed with the modification
in order of sentence as above.
30. Let the Trial Court Records and the copy of the judgment be also
transmitted to the learned Court below for its compliance in letter and
spirit.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Basant B./S. Das
9 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1360 of 2006
