Md. Mukhtar & Ors. 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 31^st May, 2016 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 78 of 2011 by the learned 1^st Addl. Sessions Judge, Deoghar, 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 29^th April, 2011 passed in P.C.R. Case No. 225 of 2002/T.R. No. 1435 of 2011 by the learned S.D.J.M., Madhupur at Deoghar, whereby and whereunder, the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced six months S.I. under Section 323 of the IPC and two years S.I. under section 498-A of the IPC.

The factual matrix giving rise to this case is that a complaint petition was filed in the Court of Learned S.D.J.M. Madhupur at Deoghar on 06.07.2002 by the father (Md. Kurban Sheikh) of the victim (Sahida Khatoon) which was numbered as P.C.R. Case No. 225 of 2002 stating therein inter alia that his daughter got married with Md. Mukhtar on 22.03.2001 and lived in her matrimonial home happily for four months, thereafter, the accused persons started to demand dowry and the complainant gave a male buffalo to his son-in-law. It is alleged that after passage of some time, the said buffalo was returned and demanded Rs. 10,000/- and due to non-fulfillment of the same by the complainant, his daughter was subjected to physical cruelty and deprived from basic food, then, the complainant managed the food in a shop of the matrimonial village. It is alleged that the complainant along with other persons tried to pacify the matter and requested the accused persons to not assault her as his daughter was pregnant but all in vain and complainant asked Vidai of his daughter which was also denied. Then, the complainant went to Madhupur P.S. to lodge the case who directed to file complaint in the Court. Thereafter, the complainant filed an informatory petition in the Court of S.D.M., Deoghar.

On the basis of the above complain petition, P.C.R. Case No. 225 of 2002 was registered and the charges were framed under Section 498-A and 323 of the IPC against the accused persons. The charges were read over and explained to them in Hindi to which, the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

In the course of trial, altogether 6 witnesses were examined by the prosecution apart from documentary evidence.

On the other hand, no oral evidence has been examined by the defence. However, documentary evidence has been adduced and statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has been recorded in which they have claimed to be innocent.

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 sated 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 case of the prosecution is that the petitioners have subjected the daughter of the complainant with torture, cruelty and also assaulted but no any medical evidence has been produced before the learned trial Court as well as appellate Court to substantiate this fact and both the courts below have failed to consider this fact which was sufficient to show the innocence of the petitioners. It has also been submitted that there is no specific statement or evidence that what type of dowry was demanded rather the case of the prosecution is that the appellants have demanded Rs. 10,000/- which was never demanded by the accused persons and the prosecution has failed to prove that for what purpose the same was demanded. Therefore, the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below deserve to be set aside and this revision may be allowed.

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 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 there is no specific allegation that when she was assaulted nor any proof of any cruelty and any specific overt act against the petitioners has been attributed as to how petitioners have subjected the daughter of the complainant with cruelty except the demand of Rs. 10,000/- made to the complainant. Admittedly, she resided in her matrimonial home only for six months and divorce has been effected between the son-in-law and daughter of the complainant. Therefore, both the courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence available on record and no cruelty as defined under Section 498A of the IPC is made out in this case and there is no injury report to prove the offence under Section 323 of the IPC. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court and upheld by the learned appellate Court as stated above deserve to be set aside.

In view of the above discussion and reasons, this revision is allowed and the impugned judgments passed by the courts below is set aside and the petitioners are acquitted from the charges leveled against them.

Petitioners 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 Records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.