Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 393 of 2002 --- Suresh Prajapati son of Sri Dukhan Prajapati, resident of village – Tulbul, P.S. Gomia, District Bokaro … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. R. C. P. Sah, Advocate --- C.A.V. on 10.04.2017 Pronounced on 10.07.2017 Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R. C. P. Sah, learned counsel appearing for the informant. In this application the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 29.05.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, IIIrd, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.08.2001 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in G. R. Case No. 1022 of 1997 convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months has been affirmed. A complaint case was instituted on the allegation that the informant was married with the petitioner on 30.04.1996 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. After about six months it is alleged that there was a demand of Rs. 10,000/- in cash and a Hero Honda motorcycle and for non-fulfillment of the said demand the informant was subjected to physical and mental torture. It is also alleged that on 18.04.1997 the informant was assaulted and ousted from her matrimonial home after snatching ornaments and clothes which were in a box. The aforesaid complaint case was referred to the police under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. which led to institution of G. R. Case no. 1022 of 1997. After charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner cognizance was taken and thereafter charge was framed under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and trial proceeded. In course of trial five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. -2- P.W. - 1, Sunder Prajapati, is the brother of the informant who has stated about the demand of Rs. 10,000/- and Hero Honda motorcycle and for non-fulfillment of which his sister was subjected to cruelty. This witness has also stated that a Panchayati was held. He has further disclosed that ultimately his sister was ousted from her matrimonial house. P.W. - 2, Ganesh Prajapati, is the father of the informant who has stated about the holding of the Panchayat over the matrimonial dispute existing between the petitioner and his daughter. He has stated that the accused did not agree to the terms and conditions imposed by the Panchayat and they had taken his daughter to her matrimonial house from where she was ousted after about two months. P.W. - 3, Ram Nath Singh, is the maternal uncle of the informant who has stated about the demand of dowry and holding of Panchayat. P.W. - 4, Munni Devi, is the informant who has disclosed about the demand made by the petitioner and the torture meted out to her due to non-fulfillment of the illegal demand. This witness has also stated about the forcible ouster from the matrimonial house. P.W. - 5, Hemant Kr. Pathak, is a formal witness. The defence has examined one witness in support of its case. D.W. - 1, Bhim Mahto, had stated about the holding of the Panchayat but it was not in respect to the issue of dowry and assault. After conclusion of trial the learned trial court vide judgment dated 14.08.2001 convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner was acquitted for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner and other accused persons being Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2001 which however was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- IIIrd, Bokaro on 29.05.2002 so far as the petitioner is concerned and the sentence as against the other accused persons are concerned, they were directed to execute probation bond. The evidence of the witnesses do lead to a conclusion that there is no dispute with respect to the marriage of the petitioner with the informant. It further appears from the evidence of P.W. - 1, P.W. - 2, P.W. - 3 and P.W. - -3- 4 that there was a demand of additional dowry by way of Rs. 10,000/- in cash and a Hero Honda motorcycle and on account of non-fulfillment of the said demand the informant was tortured for which a Panchayati was convened. The petitioner and the other persons did not agree to the terms and conditions laid down by the Panchayat and while the informant was taken back to her matrimonial house but subsequently after two months she was ousted. Although it has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no independent witnesses had been examined by the prosecution but the same can not be fatal to the prosecution case as P.W. - 1 P.W. - 2 and P.W. - 3 being close relatives of the informant (P.W. -
4) have been consistent in their evidence with respect to the demand made and the torture meted out to the informant and her subsequent ouster from her matrimonial house. The matrimonial dispute generally is confined indoors and it is only the in-laws or the relatives of the husband who generally get to know about the actual state of affairs and, therefore, the evidence of in-laws of the husband can be relied upon provided the same are consistent, corroborative, trustworthy and unadulterated. The whiffs of a matrimonial dispute do sometimes carry its odour outside the precincts of the matrimonial home but the same generally do not lead to any independent witnesses having a direct knowledge of the goings on inside the house. The matrimonial dispute however sometime comes out in the open like in the present case wherein a Panchayat was convened and the issue was discussed as could be evinced from the statement of the father of the informant (P.W. -
2) as also P.W. - 1 and P.W. - 3. The learned trial court on proper consideration of the material available on record had rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him accordingly. The learned appellate court had also affirmed the judgment of conviction on perusal of the oral as well as documentary evidence. There being no reasons to conclude otherwise the order of conviction passed against the petitioner is, hereby, sustained. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner is facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1997. The petitioner has also remained in -4- custody for sometime out of a maximum sentence of six months punishment. Considering the aforesaid scenario the period of sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Umesh/-