Botiya @ Boti Devi & Anr. vs The State Of Jharkhand

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

The instant criminal revision is preferred against the judgment dated 09^th June, 2016 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 86 of 2014 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-III, Rajmahal, whereby and whereunder, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26^th November, 2014 passed in Complaint Case No. 468 of 2008 by the learned J.M. 1^st Class, Rajmahal, 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, further R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC and further R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 342 of the IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The factual matrix giving rise to this case is that the complainant filed a complaint case stating inter alia therein that the complainant got married with petitioner No. 2 namely Sushil Mandal in June, 2006 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies and her in-laws kept her properly for three months and thereafter her mother-in-law and husband asked her to bring two bhar gold and Rs. 15,000/- from her parental home. It is further alleged that the accused persons also started to taunt her saying a dark-skinned girl and her father has not given sufficient things in dowry. It is also alleged that mother-in-law of the complainant also used to brand her as “Kali Kalauti” and “Banjhin” and her husband used to assault her on a trivial issue. The complainant called her father who came and tried to resolve the issue but all in vain. It is further alleged that on 26.07.2008, all the accused persons had beaten her brutally and her mother-in-law had snatched her jewellery and the complainant was confined in a room where she remained hungry for overnight and on information, her parents came and took her with them.

On the basis of the above complaint petition, Complaint Case No. 468 of 2008 was registered against the accused persons for the offence under Section 498A, 323, 379 of the IPC and after inquiry, cognizance was taken for the offence under Sections 323 & 498A of the IPC against the husband Sushil Mandal and under Section 342, 323 and 379 of the IPC against mother-in-law Botiya Devi and charges were framed for the offence under Sections 323, 342, 504 & 498A of the IPC.

In the course of trial, altogether 4 witnesses were examined by the prosecution including the complainant. However no documentary evidence has been adduced.

On the other hand, no oral evidence has been examined by the defence. However, one certified copy of order dated 21.05.2008 of information petition No. 278 of 2008 and one certified copy of information petition has been adduced. The accused persons in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has denied from the occurrence and claimed to be falsely implicated.

The learned trial Court after considering the evidence available on record held the petitioners guilty under Sections 323, 342 and 498-A of the IPC as stated above which was also affirmed by the learned Appellate Court.

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 not consistent with each other and there are vital contradictions in their evidence. It has further been submitted that the prosecution has also failed to consider the vital aspect of this case that no any injury report has been brought on record during trial to substantiate the fact that the complainant has ever been subjected with cruelty by the accused persons. It has also been submitted that the husband has never demanded any dowry but there are general and omnibus allegation of demanding Rs. 15,000/- by mother-in-law which has not been proved by the prosecution as per the statement of the prosecution witnesses.

In the alternative, it is submitted that petitioner No. 1 (mother-in-law) is aged about 75 years and both the petitioners have already remained in custody for more than one month out of two years maximum imprisonment and they have sufficiently been punished for their guilt. It is also submitted that complainant has now died. Therefore, this Court may take a lenient view to meet the ends of justice.

Per contra, Learned A.P.P. assisted by learned Amicus Curiae for the 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, 323 and 342 of the IPC 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 alongwith impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court as well as trial Court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of respective parties.

Perusal of the testimony of the witnesses reveals that all the prosecution witnesses have corroborated the fact that accused persons subjected the complainant with cruelty and torture due to non-fulfillment of Rs. 15,000/- and two bhar gold. It has also come to light that the accused persons ousted the complainant from her matrimonial home who was then compelled to reside in her parental home. The learned trial Court as well as appellate Court have very minutely dealt with the evidence of the witnesses and have rightly held the petitioners guilty for the offence committed by them. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the conviction of the petitioners as passed by the learned Courts below.

Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court against the petitioners under Section 498-A, 323 and 342 of the IPC upheld by learned appellate Court is hereby affirmed.

So far as the sentence of the petitioners is concerned, it appears that the petitioners have already remained in custody for more than one month out of two years maximum imprisonment and have sufficiently been punished for their guilt. It also appears that now there is no dispute which survives between them as the complainant has died and no deterrent effect of punishment would be served in this case when the complainant has died. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners again in jail for sustaining the rest of the imprisonment. Hence, 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.

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

Petitioners are on bail, hence they are discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds. Sureties are also discharged.

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.

I take this opportunity to appreciate the assistance rendered by Mrs. Rajni Singh, learned Amicus Curiae and direct the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to extend the stipulated fee as per notification of High Court Legal Services Committee to learned Amicus Curiae, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

Office is directed to ensure that a copy of this order is served upon Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee.