Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Pankaj Pant And Others on 13 March, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MS. RITU BAHRI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
13th MARCH, 2024
GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. 108 OF 2013
State of Uttarakhand.
...Appellant
Versus
Pankaj Pant and others.
...Respondents
With
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 382 OF 2013
Pankaj Pant.
...Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand.
...Respondent
Counsel for the appellant/ State of : Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate
Uttarakhand in GA No. 108/2013 General for the State of Uttarakhand.
and for respondent in CRLA No.
382/2013.
Counsel for the respondents in GA : Mr. B.S. Adhikari, learned counsel.
No. 108/2013 and for appellant in
CRLA No. 382/2013.
COMMON JUDGMENT :
(per Ms. Ritu Bahri, C.J.)
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 382 OF 2013
Appellant in CRLA No. 382/2013 has come up
in appeal against the judgment passed by the Court of
Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Session Trial No.
08/2012 dated 02/03.09.2013, whereby the appellant-
Pankaj Pant has been convicted for three years for
offence punishable under Section 498A IPC.
2. The marriage of the appellant was solemnized
with the deceased-Bhawna on 14.12.2006. As per the
complainant (brother of deceased), on 20.02.2012 at
about 09:45 P.M., he had rung up his sister on phone,
who told her that her family members and in-laws are
beating her. At 10:45 P.M. at night, the appellant-
Pankaj Pant called the complainant on phone, and told
him that Bhawna has burnt herself and committed
suicide. He also told the mother of the complainant that
he had given two injuries to Bhawna Pant with Danda.
3. As per the complainant, his sister has been
killed by the appellant-Pankaj Pant and his family
members on account of demand of dowry. Based on
this complaint, an FIR, being FIR No. 15/2012 was
registered under Sections 304B & 498A IPC and Section
3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
4. After investigation, Challan was presented and
Pankaj Pant, Girish Chandra Pant and Smt. Chandra Pant
were charge-sheeted under Sections 304B and 498A IPC
and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and
the fourth accused Brijesh Pant was charge-sheeted
under Section 498A IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961.
5. Before the Trial Court, after framing of the
charges, evidence was led by the prosecution, and
following witnesses were examined :
P.W.-1 Harish Chandra Joshi, brother of deceased
Bhawna Pant.
P.W.-2 Smt. Kamla Joshi, mother of deceased
Bhawna Pant
P.W.-3 Smt. Rekha Pant, Sister of the deceased.
P.W.-4 Dr. D.S. Panchpal, who conducted post-
mortem on the deceased
P.W.-5 Naresh Durgapal, Officer who prepared
inquest
P.W.-6 Sub-Inspector Prakash Singh
P.W.-7 Sub-Inspector Prakash Chandra Punetha
P.W.-8 Sub-Inspector Vijaya
P.W.-9 Amit Srivastava, Superintendent of Police,
Investigating Officer
6. The Trial Court, after going through the entire
evidence led by the prosecution, acquitted all the
accused under Sections 304B & 498A IPC and Section
3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. However, the
husband of the deceased-Pankaj Pant has been
convicted under Section 498A IPC for three years.
7. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the
offence under Section 498A per se is not made out
against the appellant, keeping in view the fact that all
other accused have been acquitted under Sections 304B
and 498A IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961, and no evidence can be led against the
present appellant to make out a case under Section
498A IPC.
8. After going through the impugned judgment,
and as per the facts taken note of therein, on
20.02.2012, the three year old daughter of the appellant
went missing, and when her wife Bhawna got her
daughter back after two hours, there was a fight
between the appellant-husband and the deceased-wife,
and during the fight, the appellant inflicted two injuries
on the wife Bhawna with Danda, and this fact was
disclosed by the appellant to the mother of the
deceased-Bhawna, when the brother of the deceased
called the deceased on phone at 09:45 P.M., and,
thereafter, the deceased-Bhawna committed suicide.
9. In the facts of the present case, relevant
provisions of Section 498A IPC can be examined, i.e.
sub-clauses (a) and (b). Section 498A IPC reads as
under:
"498-A. Husband or relative of husband
of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever,
being the husband or the relative of the husband of a
woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--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."
10. As per sub-clause (a) of Section 498A IPC, to
make out an offence under Section 498A IPC, there has
to be 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 her life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical).
11. In the present case, on 20.02.2012, when the
appellant had inflicted two injuries on the deceased-
Bhawna with Danda, she went in the room and burnt
herself. Giving two injuries with the Danda was of such
a nature, that her reaction was very strong, as she had
got her daughter back after two hours when she went
missing, and these injuries can be held to be of such a
nature, which drove her to commit suicide, and as per
Section 498A IPC even if she has caused a grave injury
on herself, it would amount to offence under Section
498A IPC.
12. Since in the present case, the offence under
Section 498A IPC is made out against the appellant-
Pankaj Pant, this Criminal Appeal preferred by him is
being dismissed. However, on the quantum of sentence,
keeping in view that the appellant has one daughter,
who is residing in the house of the appellant, and he has
to give time to her daughter for her proper upbringing,
the conviction of the appellant is reduced to the period
already undergone by him, which is about 1½ years.
GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. 108 OF 2013 :
13. As far as the Appeal filed by the State, against
the acquittal of the other accused is concerned, in the
present case, no evidence has been led by the
prosecution to show that there was any demand of
dowry, and the only evidence against Pankaj Pant was
that he has given beating to his wife with Danda on
20.02.2012.
14. Hence, no case is made out for interference in
the judgment of acquittal. The present Government
Appeal is also dismissed.
15. Pending application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of accordingly.
______________
RITU BAHRI, C.J.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 13th March, 2024
Rahul
