Kartik Kumar Rout vs The State Of Jharkhand & Anr.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 05.11.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No. 222 of 2006, whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.09.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Dhanbad in connection with C.P. Case No. 241/1993, whereby the petitioner was found guilty for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years along with fine of Rs. 200/-, has been upheld and confirmed by the learned appellate court.

The factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the complainant Prayag Rao (Opposite party no. 2) solemnized marriage of his sister Usha Devi with the present petitioner Kartik Kumar Rout on 23.05.1991 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. The complainant’s sister went to her matrimonial home and started residing with her husband at Digwadih, where she was mentally and physically tortured by husband and in-laws for Colour T.V., Godrej Almirah and a bed. After getting information about said cruelty continuously meted with his sister, the complainant sent one of his brothers to matrimonial home of his sister, where in their presence also Usha Devi was assaulted by her husband and her health was deteriorated. Therefore, on 14.04.1993, father of complainant brought Usha Devi at her parental house in precarious condition. In the course of treatment, Usha Devi died on 21.04.1993 due to physical and mental cruelty extended by the petitioner. After conducting enquiry, summons were issued against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 406 & 498-A of the I.P.C.

The accused persons appeared and denied from charges and claimed to be tried.

In course of trial, altogether 05 witnesses were examined by prosecution, apart from documentary evidence, Exhibit-1 i.e. the complaint petition.

The defence has also examined two witnesses namely, D.W.-1 Kartik Kumar Rout (petitioner himself) and D.W.-2 Shiv Nandan Rout. Documentary evidence of defence is Exhibit-A series is the certified copy of statement of witnesses in C.P. No. 280 / 1993. Exhibit-B is the Complaint Petition of C.P. 280 / 1993. Exhibit-C is the owner book of Vehicle bearing Registration No. BER-1987. Exhibit-D is the letter dated 21.05.1992 and Exhibit-E Series are envelops and Exhibit-F to I are various letters.

The learned trial court, after evaluating evidence available on record, adduced by the parties, held the present petitioner Kartik Rout, his younger brother Sanjay Kumar Rout, father Ishwari Rout and mother Shanti Devi guilty for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and extended the benefit of Section of Probation of Offenders Act to the accused Ishwari Rout and Shanti Devi while sentenced the petitioner Kartik Rout and Sanjay Kumar Rout R.I. for 02 years along with fine of Rs. 200/- each. The other co-accused person Krishna Rout was extended benefit of doubt and acquitted.

The convicts Kartik Kumar Rout and Sanjay Kumar Rout have preferred Cr. Appeal No. 222 of 2006 before the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, which was allowed in respect of co-convict Sanjay Kumar Rout, whose conviction and sentence was set aside, but the conviction and sentence of the present petitioner for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. was upheld, which has been assailed in this revision.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire occurrence took place in Village - Lohra under Jamui District within the State of Bihar, therefore, the trial court in the State of Jharkhand had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition, where no part of cause of action ever arose.

It is further submitted that admittedly the informant’s father brought back his daughter on 14.04.1993, who died on 21.04.1993 at her parental home itself. The complainant got no post-mortem examination of the deceased to ascertain the exact cause of death. The complaint case was also lodged after 20 days of death of the deceased without offering any valid explanation for such inordinate delay in lodging the complaint case.

It is further submitted that the mother of the deceased was also not examined to substantiate any torturous conduct leveled against the petitioner. Admittedly, the deceased lived at her matrimonial home only for one month. The prosecution has brought nothing on record to show that the health of the deceased was deteriorated due to any physical or mental cruelty meted at her matrimonial home. No medical examination report of the deceased showing her treatment for short period of one week from 14.04.1993 to 21.04.1993. All the allegations about demand of Colour T.V., Godrej Almirah and a bed are general and omnibus and not followed with any specific day and time of demand. The nature of cruelty has also not been proved by the prosecution. The learned trial court as well as appellate court has failed to consider the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the defence while recording the finding of guilt of the petitioner. Therefore, the learned appellate court has also committed serious error of law while appreciating the prosecution evidence and sued upon sympathetical approach towards the complainant’s case. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the petitioner is fit to be set aside and this revision may be allowed.

On the other hand, refuting the aforesaid points of argument, learned A.P.P. assisted with learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 / complainant has argued that the death of deceased within a week from bringing back to parental home due to subjecting her physical and mental cruelty by the petitioner and his family members. Consequently, in a tortured condition of health resulting in her death itself speaks much about the cruelty meted with the deceased at her matrimonial home. It is true that all the torturous acts and cruelty adopted by the petitioner meted with the deceased at her matrimonial home, but its consequences took place at parental home. Therefore, the partial cause of action also arose at the parental home of the deceased. The plea of territorial jurisdiction holds no much water in view of provision of Section 462 of the Cr.P.C. Nothing has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that due to trial of the case, at wrong forum, there has occurred a failure of justice. Moreover, the plea of territorial jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest occasion before the commencement of trial, which has not been taken in this case at the proper stage of proceeding. All the witnesses of fact have been examined and thoroughly cross-examined by the petitioner, therefore, no question of any prejudice to the defence arose.

It is further submitted that the witnesses, although very few in number, examined in this case have categorically proved the demand of dowry from the deceased by the present petitioner and due to non-fulfillment of which, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by not providing proper food and medical facilities causing deterioration of her health, which seriously affected her life as well. There are concurrent findings of learned trial court as well as learned appellate court holding guilt of petitioner for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C., which suffers from no error of law, calling for any interference in this revision, which is devoid of merit and fit to be dismissed.

I have gone through the judgment passed by the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both sides.

For better appreciation of the case, relevant provision is extracted as under:-

In the instant case the impugned judgment conspicuously reveals that C.W.-1 Arjun Rout, C.W.-2 Prayag Rout (complainant), C.W.-3 Banarsi Rao and C.W.-4 Suresh Prasad Rao have consistently proved that just after few days of marriage, when the complainant’s sister was residing at matrimonial home, her husband and other in-laws family members raised a demand of Colour T.V., Godrej Almirah and a bed as additional dowry due to that reason Usha Devi (deceased) was subjected to mental and physical cruelty for enforcing above demand. It is also proved that when the deceased fed up by the torture meted to her at the hands of present petitioner, she wrote a letter to Banarsi Rao (C.W.-3) about the demand raised by her husband and in-laws and the nature torture meted with her in various manner. These witnesses have also categorically proved that upon request, accused persons declined for bidai of Usha Devi, but when the torture went up to extreme then father of the deceased brought her back to parental home under precarious condition of health. It is also evident that the deceased was brought on 14.04.1993 and died on 21.04.1993. C.W.-3 Banarsi Rao has also personally visited after receiving letter of his sister at her matrimonial home and saw some mark of injury on her back and hand and also specifically stated that present petitioner and his mother assaulted to Usha Devi in his presence. Upon request for bidai, the accused persons specifically told that unless colour T.V., Godrej Almirah and a bed was given, his sister will not be able to go her parental home. The consistent testimony of above witness showing the illegal demand of additional dowry and consequent physical and mental torture meted with the deceased has not been rebutted by the defence, although the present petitioner has been examined as D.W.-1, who states that a complaint case was filed against the complainant of this case by him. The basic plea of defence was raised by him that after death of his wife, her brother and father started demanding Rs. 1 Lakh spent at the time of marriage, which he refused. Hence, he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has also brought on record the certified copy of C.P. Case No. 280 of 1993 and some order sheets, same thing has been reiterated by D.W.-2 Sheo Nandan Raut. The aforesaid plea taken by the defence is not sufficient to rebut the evidence of prosecution fortify the constituent of Section 498-A of I.P.C.

In view of above discussions and reasons, I do not find any legal justification or any substance in the points of argument raised on behalf of petitioner to take a different view from the learned trial court as well as appellate court about conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. There appear no merits in this revision, which stand dismissed.

The suspension of sentence of the petitioner passed by order dated 03.02.2010 is hereby vacated.

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.