Jugal Gowala vs The State of Bihar

P.K. Deb, J.—This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.12.1988 passed by the then 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nawadah in Sessions Trial No. 137 of 1987 convicting the accused Appellant u/s 365 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years.

The case was registered at Rajauli Police Station on 20.7.1978 on the basis of the statement made by Maheshwari Devi (P.W.1). As per her statement she was at her house while her husband was outside to earn the livelihood. One day in the month of Chaitra, Jugal Gwala alongwith the co-accused Rohni Devi visited her house situate at village Chasutha under Rajauli P.S. and on the plea that she would be taken to her husband''s place, who was not visiting for long time, took her away from her house alongwith her children. She was taken to Govindpur within the district of Dhanbad and was confined in a room. The accused Appellant persuaded her to have sexual intercourse and to contact marriage with him. As her husband has already become invalid due to fracture of leg but according to Maheshwari Devi she did not agree with the proposal. One day, the eldest son of Maheshwari Devi was beaten by accused Jugal Gwala and he managed to escape from the house and informed his father who recovered Maheshwari Devi and her children from the custody of Jugal Gwala. On the basis of the statement of Maheshwari Devi a case was registered and investigation was made. Charge sheet was submitted u/s 366/114 of the Indian Penal Code. On commitment charges were framed against both the accused persons. The Appellant Jugal Gwala was charged u/s 366 I.P.C. and accused Rohni Devi was charged under Sections 366/114 of the I.P.C. Both the accused persons were on bail during the course of trial. It was asserted on the part of the defence that in fact, Maheshwari Devi was a lady of questionable character, who voluntarily left her husband to remain in the company of Jugal Gwala and when she was driven away by the accused Jugal Gwala she launched the prosecution which was a blatent lie.

For and on behalf of the prosecution five witnesses have been examined. P.W.1 is Maheshwari Devi, P.W.2 is Sukhdeo Barhi. P.W.3 is Govind Barhi. P.W.4 is Md. Nizamuddin and P.W.5 is Ram Ratan Prasad. P.W.4 Md. Nizamuddin is only a formal witness who proved formally the F.I.R. Ext.1 and Fardbeyan Ext.2. P.W.3 Govind Barhi happens to be the husband of Maheshwari Devi P.W.1 Maheshwari Devi herself and P.W.3 Govind Barhi is the son of P.Ws.1. and 2. No independent witness has been examined in this case. It appears that Maheshwari Devi has given varying statements in her evidence and in the Fardbeyan. From the totality of the evidence on record it could be found that Maheshwari Devi was not having good relation with her husband as she did not visit her husband while he was lying in the hospital in the injured condition although she was living on the income of her husband being brought by her son. She remained with the accused Appellant for a pretty long time and whereabouts of her husband was known to her son, but still she did not go to meet her husband or to the police station which was nereby. The story concocted by her seems to be an afterthought and a manufactured one. According to her she believed on the accused Appellant and left the house to go away with him to meet her husband but she never stated that she made any attempt to meet her husband while she remained allegedly confined by the accused Appellant. Her confinement also seems to be doubtful. She remained with Jugal Gwala with her own consent and free-will. In the cross examination she had to admit that although she had several opportunity to go away from the alleged confinement she did not take the opportunity. The real story has definitely been concealed by the prosecutrix herself. Regarding sexual relationship between the two she herseif has stated that while she with her children were sleeping in the bed accused Appellant was sleeping on the ground. The fact was supported by her son also. On close scrutiny of the evidence of three witnesses the husband, wife and son it could be found that for some reasons and other there was some misunderstanding between the husband and wife and in that period Maheshwari Devi remained with Jugal Gwala or took shelter with Jugal Gwala in a rented house at Dhanbad and afterwards might be for breach of understanding between Jugal Gwala and Maheshwari Devi or the misunderstanding between the husband and wife disappeared and then this case has been lodged. There is no evidence to the effect that the accused Appellant Jugal Gwala enticed away Maheshwari Devi by applying any force. The case as deceitful means is tried to be depicted by Maheshwari Devi falls through on the conduct of herself as already mentioned above. In the facts and circumstances stated above I do find that no case has been made out for any offence in the Indian Penal Code.

In the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned conviction and sentence is hereby set aside and the accused Appellant Jugal Gowala is set free and relieved from his bail bond.