Judgment:
Cr. Revision No. 308 of 2000(R) ---------- In the matter of an application under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ---------- 1. Ganesh Ram, S/o Late Durga Ram.
2. Shankar Ram, S/o Late Durga Ram.
3. Yamuna Ram, S/o Late Durga Ram.
4. Janki Devi @ Sita Devi, W/o Late Durga Ram.
5. Satyadeo Ram, S/o Bhuneshwar Ram.
6. Binay Kumar, S/o Satyadeo Ram.
7. Champa Devi, W/o Binay Kumar. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 are residents of Village- Kund Mohalla and Petitioner Nos. 5 to 7 are residents of Village- Nai Mohalla, within Police Station- Daltonganj, District- Palamau. … … Petitioners Versus The State of Bihar now Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate For the State : None ---------- Present: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ---------- By Court: Heard Mr. Anurag Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. No one appears on behalf of the State. This revision application is directed against the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26.07.2000 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra in Cr. Appeal No. 178 of 1995, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.09.1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Chatra in G.R. Case No. 356 of 1989 (T.R. No. 199 of 1995) convicting the petitioners for the offence punishable u/s 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for one year on both the counts has been dismissed. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are the brother-in- law of the informant whereas the petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are the husband and mother-in-law of the informant respectively. It has been stated that so far as petitioner nos. 5, 6 and 7 are concerned they are nowhere related with the husband of the -2- informant and no case u/s 498A of the I.P.C is made out against them. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are vague and omnibus in nature. It has also been submitted that the very crux of the institution of the case is with respect to the alleged solemnization of the marriage of petitioner no. 3 for the second time and although the case was instituted for an offence u/s 494 of the I.P.C. also but the learned trial court had disbelieved second marriage and had acquitted the petitioner no. 3 for the offence punishable u/s 494 of the I.P.C. Learned counsel also submits that a letter was allegedly written by the informant to her father stating about the allegation but the person who had communicated the said letter was never examined by the prosecution. It has thus been stated in absence of any direct or circumstantial evidence against the petitioners of committing torture upon the informant on non- fulfillment of the demand of dowry and in view of the fact that the petitioner no. 3 has been acquitted in a case u/s 494 of the I.P.C. the impugned judgment deserves to the set aside. It appears that the First Information Report was instituted by the informant Pumpi Devi wherein it has been stated that she was married with the petitioner no. 3 but the petitioner no. 3 as well as her in-laws were forcing her to bring Rs. 5000/- for purchasing a freeze. On account of non-fulfillment of the said demand the petitioners had started torturing the informant physically and mentally and she was abused in filthy language and ultimately on 20.10.1988 she has ousted from her matrimonial house. It is alleged that after the informant was sheltered in the house of the brother-in-law a panchayati was held in which the accused persons had agreed for taking back the informant but while she was being taken back to Daltonganj she was thrown out from the vehicle after being assaulted and also threatened that the petitioner no. 3 shall solemnize second marriage. It is alleged that on 17.05.1989 the brother-in-law of the informant had given an information that the petitioner no. 3 has performed a second marriage with one Sangeeta Kumari which was inquired into and the same having been found to be -3- true the First Information Report was instituted against the petitioners for the offences punishable u/s 498A, 494/114 of the I.P.C. as also u/s 323 of the I.P.C. The prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses in support of his case. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are related with the informant and P.W.3 and P.W.4 are independent witnesses to the allegation with respect to dropping the informant from the vehicle by the petitioners are concerned as well as to the fact that the informant was threatened that if she will not pay Rs. 5000/- to the petitioner no. 3 he shall solemnize second marriage. P.W.6 Shambhu Nath Singh is the brother-in-law of the informant. It appears from the perusal of the lower court records that consistent evidence has been brought forth by the prosecution in support of its case with respect to the demand of Rs. 5000/- for purchasing a freeze and subsequent torture on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. The independent witnesses P.W.3, Lakhan Sao and P.W.4, Ramautar Prasad Sah have also supported the incident with respect to the second part in which there was a threat of solemnizing marriage of the petitioner no. 3 with another girl. The evidence of the informant as well as her relatives i.e. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 6 evokes confidence and trustworthy and have to a certain extent been supported by P.Ws. 3 and 4 with respect to the second part of the occurrence. Although learned counsel for the petitioners has harped upon the fact that the allegations against the petitioners are general and omnibus in nature but it appears as has been discussed above the witnesses have categorically stated about the involvement of the petitioners in committing the offence u/s 498A and 323 of the I.P.C. So far as the allegation of second marriage of the petitioner no. 3 is concerned the same has been disbelieved by the learned trial court as the petitioner no. 3 was acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 498A, 114 of the I.P.C. In view of the aforesaid discussion no interference is necessitated in the impugned judgment under reference so far as the question of conviction of the petitioners are concerned. However, as regards the sentence which has been awarded to the petitioners it appears that they are facing the rigors of the -4- prosecution case since the year 1989. The petitioners have remained in custody for some period out of a maximum sentence of 1 year R.I. as has been inflicted upon them u/s 498A and 323 of the I.P.C. Considering the protracted trial which the petitioners have faced, I am inclined to interfere in the sentence awarded to the petitioners by modifying the same to the period already undergone. As a totality of the circumstances enumerated above this application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi The 8th day of February, 2017 Alok/NAFR