Dilip Kumar Sinha @ Mantu vs The State Of Jharkhand

By Court:-

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Spl.P.P. as well as APP for the State in respective appeals.

These instant criminal appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction dated 30^th May, 2009 and order of sentence dated 2^nd June, 2009 passed in S.T. No. 346 of 2002 by the learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court No. X, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years along with a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 366/511 read with Section 34 of the IPC with default stipulation and further R.I. for one year for the offence under Sections 354 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The factual matrix giving rise to these appeals is that the informant-cum-victim was being tortured mentally for about 4 years by the Dilip Kumar (appellant in Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 585 of 2009). It has further been alleged in the written report that on 02.09.2001, Dilip Kumar along with his friends namely Chintu and Upendra Kumar (appellant in Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 553 of 2009) tried to kidnap the informant and prior to this incident, Dilip Kumar had tried several times to kidnap and commit murder of the informant several times and had pressurized informant’s mother to get married her daughter with Dilip Kumar. It has further been alleged that accused Dilip Kumar had put vermilion on her head when she was on her way and since then, Dilip Kumar started saying to others that he has solemnized marriage with the informant. It is further alleged that he was in habit of giving abuses and threatening on phone.

On the basis of above written report of the informant, Doranda P.S. Case No. 277 of 2001 was registered for the offence under Sections 366/511, 341, 354 read with Section 34 of the IPC. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where S.T. No.346 of 2002 was registered. The accused person denied such occurrence and claimed to be tried.

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

On the other hand, no oral evidence has been adduced by the defence. However, two documentary evidence has been adduced.

After conclusion of the trial, impugned judgment of conviction and sentence has been passed by the learned trial Court against the accused persons, which has been assailed in these appeals.

Learned counsel for the appellant-Mr. Pradeep Kumar Nayak IN Cr. App (SJ) No. 585 of 2009 has submitted that prior to the occurrence since about 4 years, love affairs was going on between the appellant-Dilip Kumar and the victim girl which fact has been admitted in the F.I.R. itself. It is alleged that vermilion was put on the head of the victim girl as expression of their deep love and since the marriage was disrupted by the family members of the victim girl who were not ready and convincing, a false case was concocted about attempt of abduction of the victim girl at the hands of the appellant and the case at best under Section 354/34 of the IPC is made out on the basis of deposition of the victim girl during trial which are compoundable in nature. A joint petition has been filed duly signed by the victim as well as appellant-Dilip Kumar along with permission to compromise petition through I.A. No. 4675 of 2014 which has also been allowed vide order dated 08^th January, 2015 passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court. It is further submitted that the occurrence is alleged to have happened in the year 2001 and now both the parties have settled in their life by performing their respective marriage and leading happy conjugal life without any interference. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants is liable to be set aside in terms of the compromise between the parties.

Mr. Afaque Ahmand, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Upendra Kumar in Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 553 of 2009 submits that there is no direct evidence on record against this appellant-Upendra Kumar. It has also been submitted that the victim girl had made an affidavit before the Notry Public that Dilip and Chintu had misbehaved with her but she had no complaint against Upendra Kumar. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence against this appellant is liable to be set aside and this appeal may be allowed.

Learned Spl.P.P. and A.P.P. have defended the judgment of learned trial Court on merits but they have said nothing in the matter of compromise, rather, they stress their argument on the point that the conviction has been passed for the offence under Section 366/511 of the IPC which is not compoundable in nature hence appropriate order may be passed.

I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of both side.

It appears that the prosecution has examined altogether two witnesses i.e. P.W.-1 (informant/victim) and P.W.-2 (Moni Kumari). Perusal of the testimony of the informant (P.W.-1) herself reveals that the informant had no complaint against Upendra Kumar-appellant in Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 553 of 2009 and this fact has been mentioned in an affidavit before Notary Public. In her cross-examination, she has stated that on October 3, 2001, she wrote an affidavit before Notary wherein she had stated that she had no complaints against Upendra. Therefore, the appellant Upendra Kumar is hereby acquitted from the charges leveled against him.

So far as appellant Dilip Kumar Sinha in Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 585 of 2009 is concerned, the informant-cum-victim had deposed that Dilip Kumar Sinha had misbehaved with her. It has also come in the deposition of the informant that there are general and omnibus allegation of abduction and kidnapping which has never happened. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant Dilip Kumar Sinha in Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 585 of 2009 under Section 366 and 511 of the IPC is hereby set aside and conviction under Section 354/34 is hereby affirmed. Since a joint compromise petition has been brought on record and the conviction of the appellant under Section 354/34 is compoundable in nature, therefore the appeal i.e. Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 585 of 2009 deserves to be disposed of in terms of joint compromise petition.

In view of the above discussion and reasons, Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 585 of 2009 stands disposed of in terms of joint compromise petition and Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 553 of 2009 stands allowed.

The appellants in both these appeals are on bail, hence, they are discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds. The 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 Record be sent back to the court concerned immediately for information and needful.