Bishundeo Prajapati & Anr. vs The State Of Jharkhand & Anr.

Heard the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners and Learned A.P.P. assisted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2.

The instant criminal revision is preferred against the judgment dated 04.10.2021 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 05 of 2020 by the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, whereby and whereunder, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal on merits with modification in sentence filed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09.01.2020 passed in Complaint Case No. 613 of 2005 (T.R. No. 566 of 2020) by the learned J.M. 1^st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj, whereby and whereunder, the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-each with default stipulation, further S.I. for one year for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC along with a fine of Rs. 1000/- each with default stipulation and further R.I. for two months for the offence under Section 4 of D.P. Act along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each with default stipulation. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The factual matrix giving rise to this case is that a complaint petition was filed by the complainant Sunita Devi (O.P. No.2) stating inter alia therein that the complainant got married with Anil Prajapati, the son of the present petitioners in accordance with Hindu Customs and Rites and her father gave all household articles and jewellery according to his capacity. After completion of marriage and other rituals, the petitioner No. 2 and her mother started taunting on a trivial matter for bringing fewer dowries. In the meantime, the complainant was also blessed with a male child. It is further alleged that the accused persons started pressurizing her to assist them in a business of liquor and on denial, the complainant was also assaulted. It is also alleged that the accused persons demanded Rs.20,000/- cash, T.V. and utensils to which complainant showed inability of her father to fulfill their demand and due to non-fulfillment, the complainant was denied from food and snatched all her belongings including ornaments and was ousted from her matrimonial home and compelled to live in her parental home. It is alleged that on 04.10.2005, the present petitioners along with their son (husband of complainant) visited the parental home of the complainant and threatened to give Talak on non-fulfillment of dowry and when the complainant did not agree to give the dowry as demanded, accused persons assaulted the complainant and her mother. The matter was reported to police station but no action was taken. Thereafter, she filed complaint petition in Court.

On the basis of the above complaint petition, complaint case was numbered as Complaint Case No. 613 of 2005. The learned C.J.M, Palamau transferred the case to the Court of S.D.J.M., Palamau, who examined the complainant on S.A. and examined the witnesses and found a prima facie case under Section 323 and 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act and the charges were framed under Section 498-A and 323 of the IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act against the accused persons who were put on trial.

In the course of trial, altogether 5 witnesses were examined by the prosecution apart from documentary evidence.

On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. The accused persons claimed to be innocent in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

The learned trial Court after considering the evidence available on record held the petitioners guilty under Section 498-A and 323 of the IPC as well as 4 of D.P. Act as stated above which was also affirmed by the learned Appellate Court with modification in sentence.

Learned counsel for the petitioners assailing the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below has submitted that all the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are the interested witnesses. It has further been submitted that the petitioner no. 2 taunted the complainant for bringing less gifts from her parental home but no any date, time and place has been mentioned in the complaint petition. It has also been submitted that accused persons never demanded Rs. 20,000/-Cash, TV and other household articles as complained in the complaint petition. It has also been submitted that the complainant has raised a point that she has been ousted from the matrimonial home but no any date has been mentioned that when she was ousted from her matrimonial home and all the allegations are baseless and not specific allegations which has not been proved against the petitioners and on this ground, they deserve acquittal form the charge leveled against them. It has also been submitted that both the petitioners are still in custody since 29.04.2026 out of one year maximum imprisonment as awarded by the learned Appellate Court.

Per contra, Learned A.P.P. assisted by Opposite Party No. 2 has defended the judgment of learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court on merits by stating that both the Courts below have very wisely and aptly gone through the record of the case and rightly found the petitioners guilty for the offence under Section 498-A and 323 of the IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act and accordingly the petitioners were convicted and there is no merits in this revision which is fit to be dismissed.

I have gone through the record of case along with impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court as well as trial Court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of respective parties.

From the evidence of witnesses examined in this case, it appears that they have consistently stated that complainant was being tortured in connection with demand of dowry by the accused persons and due to non-fulfillment of the same, the complainant was subjected with cruelty and subsequently she was ousted from her matrimonial home by the accused persons. The defence could not be able to rebut the aforesaid allegations leveled against them by bringing any cogent and reliable evidence during trial and the same has rightly been considered by the Courts Below which warrants no interference in this revision. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the conviction of the appellants passed by the learned Courts below.

In the above facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate Court against the petitioners under Section 498-A and 323 of the IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act is hereby affirmed.

So far as the sentence of the petitioners is concerned, it appears that the petitioner No. 1 has already remained in custody for about 2 months 11 days and petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are still in custody since 29.04.2026. Therefore, they have sufficiently been punished for their guilt. Hence, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners again in jail for sustaining the rest of the imprisonment. Therefore, it appears expedient, for the ends of justice to modify/alter the sentence of the petitioners. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioners is modified to the extent of period already undergone by them. Since, the petitioners are in custody and their sentence is being modified to the extent of period already undergone by them, therefore, they are directed to be released, immediately.

In result, the instant criminal revision is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above.

Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.

Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.