Cr. Revision No. 230 of 2006 --------- Against the judgment dated 24.02.2006 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 13/2005 by the learned VIII th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, affirming the judgment dated 12.01.2005 passed in Complaint Case No. 32/2001 by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj. --------- Santosh Kumar, S/o Late Ramchandra Prasad, R/o Village- Obra, P.S.- Obra, District- Sonbhadra (Uttar Pradesh) ... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, A.P.P. --------- Present: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --------- By Court: Heard Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.02.2006 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 13/2005 by the learned VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj by which the judgment dated 12.01.2005 passed in Complaint Case No. 32/2001 by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to various terms has been affirmed albeit Section 4 of the D.P. Act in which the petitioner was acquitted, the petitioner has preferred the present application. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are several discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that although the complainant who has been examined as P.W.1 has stated about a demand made from her father but her father who has been examined as P.W.2 has denied such attempt made by the petitioner. It has also been submitted that the main grudge of the complainant seems to be of not getting her name entered in the Service Book of the petitioner as a nominee and only in order to pressurize the petitioner the case u/s 498A has been -2- instituted. It has also been submitted that most of the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant are related to the complainant and therefore they being interested witnesses their evidence cannot be said to be trustworthy. It has further been submitted that although the allegations against all the accused persons were same and similar but while giving the benefit of doubt to the other accused persons only the petitioner has been convicted. An alternative argument has been put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if this Court is not inclined to interfere in the judgment of conviction the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner be suitably modify considering the fact that the petitioner has remained in custody for some time and is facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 2001. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. A complaint case was instituted by the complainant (P.W.1) in which it was stated that she has married with the petitioner in the year 1996 as per Hindu rites and customs. She has stated that at the time of marriage sufficient dowry by way of ornaments and furnitures were given to the petitioner. Allegation has been levelled that after three months of her marriage there was a demand of motorcycle and Rs. 75,000/- in cash and on account of non-fulfillment of the same the complainant was subjected to mental and physical torture. It has been alleged that in September, 1998 the father of the complainant had given Rs. 40,000/- but in spite of the same the torture continued and there was a demand of Rs. 10,000/- and a motorcycle. It has also been alleged that after the death of the father-in-law of the complainant the petitioner had secured appointment on compassionate ground since the name of the complainant was not entered into the Service Book of the petitioner as a nominee the complaint case was filed. Upon conducting an inquiry by examining the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as her witnesses cognizance was taken for the offences punishable u/s 498A, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act. After charge was framed trial proceeded. -3- In course of trial five witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant. P.W.1 (Sarita Devi) is the complainant herself who had admitted about her marriage getting solemnized with the petitioner. This witness has stated about the torture committed upon her and she was also not provided with food. She has further stated that even in spite of an amount of Rs. 40,000/- being given by her father to the petitioner she was tortured with a demand of Rs. 10,000/- and a motorcycle. She has also stated that deliberately the petitioner had not entered her name in the Service Book after he secured employment as the demands were not fulfilled. She has further stated that her parents had tried to pacify the matter but the accused persons were adamant and lastly she was ousted from her matrimonial house. P.W.2 (Saryu Ram) is the father of the complainant who has stated that he does not have any proof that an amount of Rs. 40,000/- was given to the petitioner. Although he has supported the case of the complainant but he has also admitted that the assault did not take place in his presence and the accused persons had never demanded dowry directly from him. P.W.3 (Ram Naresh Ram) is the colleague of the father of the complainant and he has stated that when a dispute occurred between the complainant and her in-laws he had gone along with P.W.2 to the matrimonial house of the complainant. P.W.4 (Raj Kumar Prasad) is the maternal uncle of the complainant who has stated that the entire incident had taken place in the matrimonial house of the complainant and the same had never taken place in his presence. He has stated that being a relative of the complainant he could intermittently come to know about the incident. P.W.5 (Agrasen Kumar) is the brother of the complainant who has stated in cross-examination that a solitary incident had taken place in his presence when he had went to the matrimonial house of the complainant wherein she was confined in a room and it was this witness who had opened the door and brought her out. The evidence of the witnesses thus suggest that there was a demand made by the petitioner and the other accused persons and part of the demand was fulfilled by P.W.2 but on account of the rest demand of Rs. 10,000/- and a motorcycle she was -4- consistently berated and assaulted by the accused persons. Although learned counsel for the petitioner has stressed much about the discrepancy between the statement of P.W.1 and P.W.2 with respect to the demand made by the petitioner but it appears from the evidence of P.W.2 that although he had stated that no demand was directly made from him but P.W.1 the complainant had categorically stated about the demand made from her by the petitioner. P.W.1 has further stated about the condition put forward by the petitioner that her name would be entered in the Service Book only after the demand of Rs. 10,000/- and a motorcycle is fulfilled by the father of the complainant. Although some of the witnesses are related to each other but the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 it is absolutely clear that there was a demand made by the petitioner and on account of non-fulfillment of which the complainant was subjected to torture and assault. On consideration of such fact circumstances the learned trial court has rightly convicted the petitioner for the offences u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code as well as u/s 4 of the D.P. Act which was subsequently affirmed by the learned appellate court albeit Section 4 of the D.P. Act in which the petitioner was acquitted. There being no reason to conclude otherwise with respect to the judgment of conviction so far as Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned the same is hereby affirmed. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner it appears that the petitioner is facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 2001 and has also remained in custody for some time. In view of the long pendency of the case and the incarceration of the petitioner in custody for some time the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence. (R. Mukhopadhyay, J.) Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi The 4th day of January, 2018 Alok/NAFR