Binod Kumar Munjan vs The State Of Jharkhand & Anr.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. None appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2.

The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 12.02.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in Cr. Appeal No. 80 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner and others has been dismissed, upholding the judgment of conviction dated 15.07.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Gumla in G.R. No. 503 of 2008 for the offence under Section 498A of I.P.C. However, the learned appellate court has extended the benefit of provisions of Probation of Offenders’ Act to the other co-accused persons while the sentence of the petitioner was reduced from R.I. of 3 years, which has been awarded by learned trial court, to R.I. of one year.

Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the informant / complainant Suleshwari Devi was married with the present petitioner on 11.07.2000 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs and started living at her matrimonial home. She was also blessed with female and male child. It is alleged that after four years of the marriage, her husband kept a concubine in his house and upon some pretext, left the informant to her parental home. The informant made several requests to her husband to bring back to her matrimonial home along with children, but he pays no heed. The informant has also filed a maintenance case before the Family Court, Gumla, which is still pending. It is further alleged that on 02.09.2006, the accused husband filed an application in the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gumla requesting custody of his wife and children and by the order of the Court, the informant along with her children sent with petitioner to her matrimonial home. Thereafter, her husband started demanding a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and one Hero Honda motorcycle as dowry then she again returned to her father’s house and narrated the above incident. Her father shows his inability to fulfill the demand of the accused. The father of the informant again took her along with children to her matrimonial home, but she was again being abused and ill-treated in connection with non-fulfillment of demands. It is further alleged that on 07.10.2006, present petitioner and in-laws assaulted her with rods and she was driven away along with female child to her parental home keeping custody of the male child with themselves. The informant approached the Chatra Police Station where she was not listened, then she returned to her parental home and lodged this case before Court. The complaint was sent to the concerned police station under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. for registration of F.I.R. and investigation.

Accordingly, F.I.R. being Ghaghra P.S. Case No. 41 of 2008 was registered for the offence under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 149 of the I.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 498-A, 323/34 of I.P.C. After taking cognizance, charges were framed under Sections 498-A, 323/34 of I.P.C. on 16.06.2010. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

In course of trial, altogether seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution apart from documentary evidence.

On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by defence. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication due to matrimonial dispute and difference as well as plea of innocence.

The trial court, after scrutinizing the evidence available on record, has acquitted the accused persons from the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and convicted for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. of three years.

The convicts preferred Cr. Appeal No. 80 of 2013, wherein vide judgment dated 12.02.2016, the conviction of the petitioner and other co-accused persons was upheld, but except petitioner, other co-accused were given benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders’ Act and were directed to be released on furnishing probation bond of Rs. 5,000/- with two sureties while the sentence of the petitioner was reduced from R.I. of three years to R.I. of one year for the offence under section 498A of the I.P.C., which has been assailed in this revision.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the trial court as well as appellate court has been failed to appreciate that the learned trial court had no territorial jurisdiction to try the offence involved in this case because all the incident are alleged to have been happened within territorial jurisdiction of Chatra district and the case was instituted in Gumla district. Therefore, entire trial proceeding has been vitiated under law and liable to be set aside on this score alone.

The learned trial court as well as learned appellate court has also failed to properly appreciate the evidence of witnesses including the informant, which suffers from material contradictions and discrepancies, rendering their evidence to be not reliable. The petitioner was acquitted from the charge under Section 323 of the I.P.C., therefore, on the basis of factual back ground asserted in the F.I.R. regarding incident of assault, which lead the wife to leave the house of petitioner becomes absolutely false and fabricated story. Therefore, impugned judgments are liable to be set aside and this revision may be allowed.

On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the material witnesses examined in this case have categorically proved the demand of dowry and consequent torture and harassment meted with the informant at the hands of the present petitioner being her husband. It is also proved that due to intervention of the court, the informant was brought to her matrimonial home, but there was persistent demand of dowry, torture and humiliation meted with the informant, so that she was constrained to leave her matrimonial home and driven out along with her children. She has also lodged a maintenance case against her husband, but nothing is being paid by the petitioner for sustenance of herself along with her child. Petitioner has also kept a concubine. The material facts have been corroborated by prosecution witnesses to the hilt, constituting the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. by the petitioner. There are concurrent findings of fact regarding guilt of the petitioner for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. which suffers from no illegality and infirmity, calling for any interference, which is fit to be dismissed.

I have gone through the records of the case along with impugned judgments. The main core question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner pertains to territorial jurisdiction of court at Gumla, where no cause of action arose. The above point was also adjudicated before the learned appellate court, which has been answered in view of judgment reported passed in 2015 (3) JLJR 293 [Rajkishori Devi @ Smt. Runia Devi & Others Vs. State of Jharkhand & Another] and 2010 (4) JLJR 38 [Sushila Agarwal & Another Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another] relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant (petitioner herein), wherein a proceeding was initiated under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. challenging territorial jurisdiction of the Court, but in the instant case, trial has been concluded and culminated in the conviction of the appellant (petitioner herein).

The learned appellate court has also considered the provisions of Section 460, 461 & 462 of the Cr.P.C. and recorded objective findings that the petitioner has contested the case throughout on merits without raising the plea of territorial jurisdiction at the initial stage of the proceeding and it is not a case, where it can be said that due to trial before a wrong forum has occasioned in failure of justice. Accordingly, discarded the above point raised by the appellant (petitioner herein).

As regard commission of offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. also, the learned appellate court has dealt with the evidence of victim lady, her parents and other evidence available on record and concurred with the judgment of learned trial court that prosecution has proved beyond doubt the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. However, the sentence awarded to the petitioner was reduced from R.I. of three years to R.I. of one year.

In this revision, this Court is not obliged to re-appreciate the evidence and interfere with the fact findings of the court unless it suffers from perversity or any illegality or otherwise touching propriety of the judgment.

In view of the above discussions and reasons, I do not find any merits in this revision, which stands dismissed.

The petitioner is on bail. His bail bond is hereby cancelled.

The petitioner is directed to surrender before the concerned trial court within two months from the date of this judgment and receive the remaining sentence awarded by the learned trial court and undergo the remaining period of imprisonment, failing which, the learned trial court shall take all coercive steps in securing the attendance of the petitioner and sending him under proper conviction warrant to jail custody for undergoing the remaining period of sentence awarded to him.

Pending I.A. if any stands disposed of.

Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent immediately to the court concerned for information and needful.