Dismissed

Suresh Rawani v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC7 Sept 2017Cr.Rev./897/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge bench sustained conviction under Section 498A IPC against husband and in-laws for mental and physical torture. Court modified sentence to period already undergone as petitioners had been in custody since 2000, dismissing criminal revisions otherwise.

What did the court decide?

Conviction sustained; sentence modified to period of imprisonment already undergone by petitioners.

Suresh Rawani Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Rev. No. 897 of 2005

¶3

With

¶4

Cr. Rev. No. 601 of 2005

¶5

¶6

Suresh Rawani son of Gopal Rawani, resident of village Jagarnathpur, P. S. Pirpaiti, District Bhagalpur … … Petitioner

¶7

(In Cr. Rev. No. 897 of 2005)

¶8

Gopal Rawani son of Late Bharat Rawani

¶9

Basanti Devi, wife of Gopal Rawani

¶10

Ram prasad Rawani, son of Gopal Rawani

¶11

Lalita Devi wife of Ram Prasad Rawani, all resident of village Jagarnathpur, P.S. Pirpainti, District Bhagalpur (Bihar)

¶12

(In Cr. Rev. No. 601 of 2005)

¶13

Versus

¶14

The State of Jharkhand

¶15

Anju Devi, D/o Shri Jamuna Rawani, W/o Suresh Rawani, R/o Vill – Gangta Khurd, P.S. - Godda (T) Dist – Godda

¶16

… … Opp. Parties (In both the cases)

¶17

--- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶18

For the Petitioners : None For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate

¶19

10/07.09.2017 Since Criminal Revision No. 897 of 2005 and Criminal Revision

¶20

No. 601 of 2005 arise out of the same judgment, both are being disposed of by this common order.

¶21

No one appears on behalf of the petitioners. However, Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 in both the cases, is present.

¶22

As these matters are of the year 2005 and in absence of the learned counsel for the petitioners the same are being disposed of based on the materials available on records.

¶23

These applications are directed against the judgment dated 16.06.2005 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C. No. 3), Godda in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2004/02 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.04.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda whereby and whereunder the petitioners have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each has been affirmed.

¶24

-2-

¶25

The prosecution case arises out of a complaint petition filed by the complainant Anju Devi (opposite party no. 2) wherein it was alleged that the marriage was solemnized with the petitioner of Criminal Revision No. 897 of 2005 on 19.04.1994. It is alleged that the opposite party no. 2 stayed in her matrimonial house for about a period of three years and during that period she had given a birth to a daughter. Allegation has been levelled that there was a demand of Rs. 20,000/- from the in-laws and ultimately she was ousted from her matrimonial house in July, 1998. It has also been alleged that since a legal notice was sent to the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 897 of 2005, the accused had come to her parental house and taken her back where she allegedly stayed for one month. It has also been alleged that thereafter she was driven out from her matrimonial house once again whereupon she took shelter in her parents' house and thereafter she was again brought to her husband in Surat where her husband tried to sell her. It is alleged that the parents having been informed about the misdeeds of the husband she was taken back from Surat and since than she is residing in her parental house along with her daughter.

¶26

After conducting an enquiry on examining the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as the witnesses cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Since the complainant had been able to prove her case beyond all reasonable doubts the learned trial court vide judgment dated 20.04.2004 had been pleased to convict the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.

¶27

Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2004/02 of 2005 which however was dismissed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C. No. 3), Godda on 16.06.2005.

¶28

In course of trial five witnesses were examined on behalf of the

¶29

complainant.

¶30

P.W. - 1, Jamuna Rawani, is the father of the complainant who had stated that her daughter was married with the petitioner of Criminal Revision No. 897 of 2005. This witness had stated that there was a demand of Rs. 20,000/- and the opposite party no. 2 was subjected to

¶31

-3-

¶32

physical and mental torture. He has further stated that a Panchayati was held at his house for taking his daughter to Surat by her husband. This witness has further stated that on receiving a letter which has been marked 'X' for identification regarding complaints made against the husband he had gone to Surat and taken her daughter back and thereafter the case was instituted.

¶33

P.W. - 2, Phulo Devi, is the mother of the complainant who had also stated on similar terms to what has been stated by P.W. - 1.

¶34

P.W. - 3, Chandrika Prasad Sah, is an independent witness who had supported the factum of marriage and the birth of the daughter out of the said marriage. This witness had also admitted that a Panchayati was held and pursuant to the decision of the Panchayat the complainant was taken to Surat where her husband stayed.

¶35

P.W. - 4, Anju Devi, is the complainant herself who apart from the fact that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 697 of 2005 had stated that after remaining in peace for a period of two to three years after the marriage she was ousted from her matrimonial house after committing assault upon her. This witness had also stated that after Panchayati was held there was a demand of Rs. 20,000/- made from the complainant and all the accused persons including the husband and the in-laws used to regularly assault her and ultimately she was once again driven out from her matrimonial house. This witness had further stated that her husband had solemnized second marriage and for that reason he wanted to sell her out. She had further stated that after she was taken back to her parental house she had filed the criminal case.

¶36

P.W. - 5, Madan Rawani, is the cousin brother of the complainant who had stated about the letter received from the complainant from Surat which was read over by him on asking by the Police in which there was an averment of torture committed by the petitioner of Criminal Reivision No. 897 of 2005.

¶37

The defence had examined one witness namely Dashrath Rawani who in cross-examination had admitted that the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 897 of 2005 was working in Surat where he had taken the complainant. This witness had however showed his inability to state anything regarding the conjugal life of the petitioner of Criminal Revision

¶38

-4-

¶39

No. 897 of 2005 and the complainant. The defence had taken a plea that most of the witnesses examined by the complainant being related, are interested and partisan witnesses.

¶40

It has also been stated that the learned trial court had placed undue reliance on the letter which has been marked 'X' for identification. Further plea has been taken by the defence that there was no proof produced by the complainant to suggest the physical assault committed upon her and merely on the statement given by her the learned trial court had come to a finding regarding the mental and physical torture meted out to the complainant. A plea has also been taken that no concrete proof has come forward to suggest that the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 897 of 2005 had solemnized another marriage.

¶41

Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 in both the cases, has supported the impugned judgment and had stated that P.W. - 4, the complainant, has been very categorical with respect to the physical and mental torture meted out to her and her repeated ouster from her matrimonial house. He had further stated that P.W.s – 1 and 2 being the parents, the complainant P.W. - 4 had also supported the torture committed upon the complainant. Learned counsel further submits that apart from P.W.s – 1, 2 and 4, P.W. - 3 is an independent witness who had also stated about the holding of Panchayat and the ouster of the complainant from her matrimonial house. Learned counsel thus submits that there has been consistent evidence on behalf of the complainant which could not be refuted by the petitioners and in such circumstance, therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court be sustained.

¶42

The petitioner is Criminal Revision No. 897 of 2005 is the husband of the complainant whereas the petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 601 of 2005 are her in-laws.

¶43

A thread bare examination of the evidence of the witnesses do suggest that they are consistent with respect to the demand of Rs. 20,000/- made from the complainant as well as holding of a Panchayat and her ouster her from matrimonial house. It further

¶44

-5-

¶45

appears from the evidence of the witnesses that after her initial ouster, the matter was settled in a Panchayat after which the complainant was taken to Surat by the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 897 of 2005 but even then allegations have also been levelled that the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 897 of 2005 had wanted to sell out the complainant for which a letter was written by the complainant which has been marked as 'X' for identification. The learned appellate court has put reliance on the said letter on the reasons which have been mentioned in the judgment which are absolutely germane for consideration of the said document. The letter which has been sent by the complainant from Surat thus suggest that she was subjected to repeated torture at Surat also by the husband. Even if the said letter is not taken into consideration the oral evidence of the witnesses are cogent and categorical with respect to the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 897 of 2005 taking the opposite party no. 2 at Surat after repeatedly committing torture and even at Surat she was forced to leave her matrimonial house on account of the threat to her life as well as the assault committed by her husband.

¶46

The defence has produced one witness but the said witness could not demolish the case of the complainant rather this witness had admitted to the fact that the petitioner in Criminal Reivion No. 897 of 2005 was working in Surat and the opposite party no. 2 had also gone to Surat to stay with him. The defence witness, therefore, had virtually supported the fact regarding the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 897 of 2005 as alleged by the opposite party no. 2. The entire evidence brought forward by the complainant does suggest that the petitioner had taken part in committing mental and physical torture upon the opposite party no. 2. This fact having been appreciated by the learned trial court the petitioners were rightly convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The learned appellate court also based on the material available on record affirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court.

¶47

There being no reasons to conclude otherwise with respect to the conviction passed against the petitioners and which was affirmed in appeal the same is, hereby, sustained.

¶48

-6-

¶49

However, as regards the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioners is concerned, it appears that the petitioners are facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 2000 and have also remained in custody for sometime. On considering of the said facts the sentence imposed upon the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone.

¶50

These applications stand dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.

¶51

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶52

Umesh/-

Suresh Rawani v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Rawani v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Paswan Alias Rajesh Kumar Paswan Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Manoranjan Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Manjur Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Jit Lal Rabidas Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Dharam Roy Vs State of Jharkhand

Surya Sonal Singh Vs Directorate Of Enforcement