Sanjit Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand & Anr.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

The present criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 11.08.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Godda in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.03.2014 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Godda in G.R. No. 505 of 2009 has been confirmed, whereby petitioner has been held guilty for the offence under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation, while other accused persons have been acquitted from the charges leveled against them.

The factual matrix of the case giving rise to this revision is that on 19.05.2009, a complaint was submitted by the complainant in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda bearing Complaint Case No. 262 of 2009, stating therein that the marriage of complainant was solemnized on 17.05.2005 with the petitioner. After marriage, complainant went to her sasural at Babupur, where she was stayed for three days and thereafter, she came back to her maika. On 20.04.2006, her duragman taken place and the complainant went to her sasural. At the time of marriage, Rs. 50,000/- cash and jewelry etc. was given to the father of petitioner and his relatives. On the occasion of her duragman, furniture of Rs. 10,000/- and other household article Rs. 5,000/- were given to petitioner’s family. After some time, petitioner with assistance of his father, mother and uncle has started a demand of Rs. 50,000/-from the informant and on showing her inability in fulfilling the demand, the accused persons stopped providing her food items and started torture. Thereafter, the petitioner took her Mohanpur and left her in her father’s house. In the month of August, 2006, a Panchayati was conveyed in the house of accused persons, but it was gone in vain and accused persons have not taken the complainant from her Mainka and lastly, she compelled to file complaint against the accused persons, which was forwarded under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to the police station and thereafter, Mahagama P.S. Case No. 48 of 2009 was registered under Section 498-A/323/34 of the I.P.C. against five accused persons on 01.06.2009. Complainant Rekha Devi is the wife of petitioner namely, Sanjit Yadav, while Rajendra Yadav, Mira Devi, Krishnadeo Yadav and Subodh Kumar Yadav are relatives of the husband of the complainant / informant.

After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against all the accused persons including the petitioner for the offence under Sections 498-A, 323 / 34 of the I.P.C., who were put under trial. After conclusion of trial, petitioner was held guilty for the offence under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. and sentenced, as stated above, while other four accused were acquitted from the charges levelled against them.

The judgment of conviction and order of sentence of petitioners was challenged in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2014 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Godda, which was heard and disposed of vide judgment dated 11.08.2016, whereby the conviction and sentence of the petitioner was upheld and confirmed and appeal was dismissed, which has been assailed in this revision.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although the marriage of the complainant / informant was solemnized with the present petitioner in the year 2005 and the complainant / informant has stayed in her matrimonial for only three days, but the complaint was filed in the year 2009. The entire complaint against the petitioner is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law, as the same have been filed with mala fide intention. A bare perusal of the complaint would reveal that the complainant / informant / opposite party no. 2 has resided at her matrimonial home for three days only and thereafter lived separately at her parental home, thereby rendering the allegations of cruelty inherently improbable. The complaint is conspicuously silent on any specific instances of physical or mental harassment and contains only vague, omnibus allegations, without attributing any specific role to him. It is further submitted that the allegations are concocted, contradictory to admitted facts, and have been levelled only to harass and pressurize the petitioner. There is general and omnibus allegations levelled against the petitioner and no offence under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. is made out on the basis of evidences of prosecution witnesses. The I.O. of the case has not been examined and there is no proof of place of occurrence. On the same set of evidence, petitioner has been convicted by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court, while other accused persons were acquitted by the learned trial court. Hence, this revision may be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgments and orders passed by the learned trial court as well as appellate court.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have 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 / informant to cruelty and harassment giving her physical assault and mentally trauma. The complaint discloses the commission of cognizable offences, particularly under Section 498-A of the I.P.C., as the complainant has specifically narrated continuous acts of cruelty, harassment, and physical as well as mental torture inflicted upon her by the husband and his family members. It is submitted that despite sufficient dowry being given at the time of marriage, the complainant was subjected to persistent taunts, demands for additional money, physical assault, and humiliation on trivial domestic issues and being deprived of basic necessities. The complainant was also wrongfully confined, financially neglected, and repeatedly pressured to bring money from her parental home, which clearly establishes a pattern of cruelty. The conviction and sentence of petitioner is justified under law and this revision has no merits and 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 498-A is extracted as under:-

A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that in order to establish offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, the prosecution must establish,

The word 'cruelty' within the meaning of Section 498-A of the IPC has been explained in Explanation appended to Section 498-A of the IPC. It consists of two clauses namely clause (a) and clause (b).

To attract Section 498-A of the IPC, it must be established that cruelty or harassment to the wife to coerce her or cause bodily injury to herself or to commit suicide or the harassment was to compel her to fulfill illegal demand for dowry. It is not every type of harassment or cruelty that would attract Section 498-A of the IPC. Explanation (b) to Section 498-A of the IPC contemplates harassment of woman to coerce or any relation of her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. The complainant if wants to come within the ambit of Explanation (b) to Section 498-A of the IPC, she can succeed if it is proved that there was an unlawful demand by the husband or any of his relatives with respect to money or of some valuable security.

In the present case, no allegation, which would fulfill the requirement of the second part, are found. No specific date, time or manner of commission of offence has been mentioned, not only this “cruelty” as defined and explained in the two explanations, as discussed, appended under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. has also not been clarified in the complaint itself. The contents of complaint, as discussed above, also does not mention as to how and in what manner the complainant/ informant was subjected to cruelty, rather she has given a general allegation that petitioner demanded Rs. 50,000/- and on non-fulfillment of same, she was continuously being assaulted at her matrimonial home.

Considering the overall aspects of the case, the prosecution has failed to prove cruelty by the husband, therefore, in my considered view, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence awarded to the petitioner is perverse.

In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons, I find that both learned trial court as well as learned appellate court has committed serious error of law in appreciating the evidence available on record and passed the impugned judgment only influenced by their emotions. Therefore, I find legal substance in the points of argument raised on behalf of the petitioner and merits in this revision. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the petitioner passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the appellate court is hereby set aside and this revision is allowed.

Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.

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 concerned trial court for information and needful.