Ranjeet Das @ Ranjeet Kumar Das vs The State Of Jharkhand & Anr.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 08.03.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 133 of 2016, whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and thereby upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.08.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 1577 of 2010, whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year along with fine of Rs. 7,000/- with default stipulation.

Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that on 20-04-2006, the complainant Sarwani Das was married with Ranjeet Kumar Das @ Ranjeet Das as per Hindu rights and customs and thereafter she went to her matrimonial house, where the accused persons started to demand the dues amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as they had already received Rs. 1,50,000/- out of total demand of Rs. 2,50,000/-at the time of settlement of marriage. Apart from that, other articles worth Rs. 1,40,000/- had already been given at the time of marriage. The accused persons also started to torturing her by putting mental pressure and using filthy languages. On protest, they assaulted her with fists and slaps. She has further alleged that she gave birth to a female child on 14-06-2007, then she was expecting that the accused persons may stop torture upon her, but the accused persons again put more pressure and tortured her for giving birth of female child. The complainant informed to her father about the occurrence, then she was forced to leave her in-laws’ house. However, again the complainant came back to her in-laws’ house to settle her conjugal life with the help of the relatives, but again the accused persons demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- and also made torture and assaulted her and ultimately, she was driven out from her in-laws’ house. She has further alleged that on 07-08-2010, her father had come with police and took back her with him. After that, on 15-08-2010 her husband along with some anti-social elements came to the parental house of the complainant at Dohatand, where her husband assaulted her in presence of the family members. She has further alleged that the matter was reported to the local police, but the police did not take any action, then she has filed a complaint case being C.P. Case No. 1577 of 2010 before the court.

On the basis of the complaint petition, statement of the complainant on S.A. and statements of the inquiry witness u/s 202 Cr.P.C., the learned trial court has found a prima facie case against the accused persons including the appellant u/s 498(A)/34 IPC and accordingly, they were summoned to face trial. After appearance of the accused persons and on the basis of evidence before charge adduced by the complainant, charge under Section 498(A) IPC has been framed against the accused persons and the trial commenced.

In course of trial, the complainant has examined altogether 03 witnesses namely, C.W.-1 : Sandhya Devi (Mother of the Complainant). C.W.-2 : Shankar Das (Father of the Complainant). C.W.-3 : Sarwani Das (Complainant).

However, no documentary evidence has been adduced by the complainant.

On the other hand, the defence has examined two witnesses namely, D.W.-1 : Bhimlal Das. D.W.-2 : Sanjay Kumar Das

Apart from oral testimony of defence, following documentary evidence have been adduced:-Exhibit-A – Signature of Sanker Das and Sarwani Das. Exhibit-B – Letter dated 07.08.2010.

After conclusion of trial, the learned trial court has acquitted Sahadeo Das (father-in-law) and Bina Devi (mother-in-law) from the charges leveled against them, but petitioner (husband) was held guilty for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and sentenced, as stated above.

Thereafter, petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No. 133 of 2016 before the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dhanbad, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 08.03.2017, which has been assailed in this revision.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the marriage between petitioner and complainant was solemnized in the year 2006 and there is general and omnibus allegation of demand and torture that is also after 4½ years of marriage. It is further submitted that the complainant has stated in her evidence that she was residing in her matrimonial home peacefully for 1-2 months, but thereafter the in-laws started demanding additional dowry and on non-fulfillment of same, they started torture her, but she has not alleged anything till the filing of the complaint in the year 2010. In the complaint, the first occurrence is alleged to have happened on 07.08.2010, but no sanha or case was lodged for the such occurrence. It is further submitted that in the complaint, it is alleged that on 15.08.2010, this petitioner and his brother came to her parental house and demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- and also assaulted her in front of her parents, but no injury report was brought on record. Complainant is working as Teacher. It is further submitted that the complainant voluntarily went to her parental home, which is corroborated by Exhibit-A & B, relied by the defence. It is further submitted that out of one year’s sentence, petitioner has remained in custody for about two months. The appellant has also undergone the agony of protracted trial for about 15 years. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the trial court upheld by the appellate court may be set aside and this revision may be allowed.

Learned APP on behalf of the State assisted by learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that both the courts below have concurrently recorded the finding of guilt of the petitioner, who has subjected the complainant, a married lady to cruelty and harassment giving her physical assault and mental trauma and without any reason left her at her own destiny along with minor child. The conviction and sentence of petitioner is justified under law and so far quantum of sentence is concerned, in the facts and circumstances and conduct of the petitioner, it appears to be proportionate, just and proper and this revision has no merits and is fit to be dismissed.

I have given anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and also perused the impugned judgments and order along with other materials available on record.

Before imparting my verdict on merits, the provision of Section 498A is extracted as under:-

In the instant case, charge was framed under one head on 28.07.2014. The first part of the charge reads as under:-

So far charge under Section 498A of the I.P.C. against all the accused are concerned, no time or manner of commission of offence has been mentioned. Not only this “cruelty” as defined and explained in the two explanations as appended under Section 498A of the I.P.C. has also not been clarified in the charge itself. The contents of complaint, as discussed above, also does not mention as to how and in what manner the victim-complainant was subjected to cruelty, rather she has given a general allegation that on 07.08.2010, 09.08.2010, 15.08.2010 and many time at Donatand and in-law’s house, husband Ranjeet Das and his relatives i.e. Sahadeo Das, Bina Devi, Rajeet Das, husband of Sarwani Das subjected the complainant to cruelty by torturing her. Hence, her father taken her to her parental home on 07.08.2010 and the first occurrence alleged to be taken place on 07.08.2010 i.e. about 4 ½ years after the marriage. The mother of the complainant (C.W.-1), in her evidence has specifically stated that after marriage, her daughter (complainant) has come to her parental house for about 4-5 times, but she has not stated about any demand and torture.

From perusal of evidence of the witnesses in light of the judgment of the learned trial court, it appears that the complainant has focused the incidents of 07.08.2010, 09.08.2010 and 15.08.2010, which are the main dates of occurrence. No other occurrence has been mentioned in the Charge. The learned trial court in the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. of the accused has asked no question at all about any illegal demand of money or physical or mental torture meted with the complainant on aforesaid dates, rather it is asked that just after two months of marriage, she was subjected to physical and mental torture due to non-fulfillment of additional demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- as dowry, which does not find place in the Charge. No specific question has been asked about any incident of 09.08.2010 in the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., which are extracted hereunder:-

It is settled law that any incriminating circumstance appearing against the accused, if not get explained under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., cannot be made basis of conviction, as it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Paramjeet Singh V. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2010) 10 SCC 439 at Para-22 (Page-449) that:-

Both the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court has ignored the evidence of witnesses, wherein nothing has been disclosed about any specific incident of 07.08.2010, 09.08.2010 and 15.08.2010 as against it the incident of 07.08.2010 that the complainant was brought to her parental home by her father with aid of police under written agreement, which is also admitted and exhibited as Exhibit-A & B on behalf of petitioner goes to show that she voluntarily returned to her parental home of her own accord. The subsequent development by the complainant that the said letters were got written by her husband putting under fear and coercion has also not been complained anywhere even at the time of writing the same at the police station Pindrajora. Admittedly, the complainant works as a teacher and there is every possibility that she was not desirous to live in a joint family with her husband, rather to mend her own career. There is no iota of evidence at all to prove the relevant incidents of cruelty and torture meted with the complainant on the alleged date, time and place. It appears that for all practical purposes, the marriage has been breakdown. There is no emotion for each other. There is matrimonial discard and lack of adjustment between the parties. Both are residing separately since long. The appellant has also undergone the agony of protracted trial for about 15 years. Therefore, the judgment passed by the learned trial court and confirmed by the appellate court suffers from perversity and absolutely illegal and beyond the weight of evidence available on record, which cannot be legally sustained.

In view of discussions and reasons, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.08.2016 and upheld by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 08.03.2017 are hereby set aside and accordingly, the petitioner is acquitted from the charge levelled against him.

In the result, this revision is allowed.

Petitioner is on bail, as such, he shall be discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties shall also be discharged.

Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to the court concerned for information and needful.