Allowed

Mohan Mandal v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 May 2018Cr.Rev./555/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld the conviction of the petitioner for cruelty under Section 498A IPC and the acquittal for dowry offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, as per the Sessions Court's revised judgment. The sentence imposed on the petitioner was modified to extinguish the remainder of the term after balancing the custodial period rendered.

What did the court decide?

The order of sentence passed against the petitioner was modified to the period already undergone by him.

Mohan Mandal Vs State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

Criminal Revision No. 555 of 2008

¶2

Against the judgment dated 10.06.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar and the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 03.12.2007 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar in G.R. Case No. 37 of 2003 (T.R. No. 605 of 2007 )

¶3

Mohan Mandal … Petitioner

¶4

Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶5

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. S. P. Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajnish Vardhan, APP

¶9

¶10

03. 05.2018 : 1. Heard Mr. S. P. Roy, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rajnish Vardhan, learned APP for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 10.06.2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 2007 by learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar, whereby and whereunder, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 03.12.2007 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar in G.R. Case No. 37 of 2003 (T.R. No. 605 of 2007), convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, has been affirmed, whereas the petitioner has been acquitted from the charged leveled u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by the learned appellate court.

¶11

3. The prosecution story in brief is that the daughter of the informant was married with the petitioner as per Hindu rites and customs. It has been alleged that for a period of 02 years she was kept well by the accused persons, but thereafter at the instigation of other accused persons, the petitioner had started demanding a television, fan and cash of Rs. 20,000/On account of inn-fulfilment of the said demand, the accused persons had started committing torture upon the daughter of the informant. On seeing the pitiable condition of his daughter, the informant had taken her back to his house and subsequent thereto Sarwan P.s. Case No. 07 of 2003 was instituted in which after investigation charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, charge was framed u/s 498A, 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and thereafter trial proceeded.

¶12

¶13

4. The learned trial court by judgment dated 03.12.2007 had convicted the petitioner and other accused persons for the offences punishable u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced them accordingly. An appeal being preferred by the petitioner and others being Cr. Appeal No. 132 of 2007 led to passing of the judgment dated 10.06.2008 in which the allegation u/s 498A was sustained so far as the petitioner and his parents are concerned and the sentence imposed upon the parents of the petitioner was modified by giving benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. So far as Section 4 of the D.P. Act is concerned, the petitioner was acquitted from the said charge.

¶14

5. In course of trial 05 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 1, Rinku Devi is the victim of this case, who had stated that her marriage was solemnized with Mohan Mandal as per Hindu rites at Sarath Mandir. She further stated that she lived happily for two years and thereafter demand of T.V., fan and cash of Rs. 20,000/- was made by the accused husband. She informed the matter to her father. She has further stated that on account of non-fulfillment of demand she was being ill-treated and she was also not given proper food. She has also stated that in spite of best efforts made by her father, the accused persons did not give up their demand and ultimately she was ousted from her matrimonial home. She has further stated on efforts made by Court she had gone 3 or 4 times to her matrimonial home but had to return back to her parental house. P.W. 2, Thakur Mandal is the informant and father of the victim. He has reiterated the statement which he had given in his written report and supported the allegation with respect to torture committed upon his daughter on account of non-fulfillment of the demand. P.W. 3 is Balram Mandal, who has stated about the demand made by the petitioner and his parents and after torture was committed upon the victim, she was ousted from her matrimonial home. This witness is the uncle of the petitioner, who resides in a common courtyard with the petitioner and her family. P.W. 4 is Shivnath Mandal who had stated about the Panchayati being held but the same yielded no positive result. P.W. 5 Umesh Chandra Das is a formal witness and he has proved the formal complaint and the formal F.I.R. which have marked as Ext. 1/1 and ½ respectively.

¶15

¶16

5. The petitioner happens to be the husband of the victim and the son-in-law of the informant. Apart from the victim having supported her case with respect to the demand made by the petitioner and the torture meted out on account of on non-fulfillment of the said demand, her version has also been supported by P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 who resides with the family members of the petitioner. Therefore the version of P.W. 1 and 2 has duly been supported by P.W. 3 as well as P.W. 4 with respect to the demand and torture meted out to the daughter of the informant.

¶17

6. The circumstances enumerated above, has rightly been appreciated by the learned appellate court while sustaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offence u/s 498A and acquitting him for the offence u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶18

7. There being no reasons to conclude otherwise, the judgment dated 10.06.2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 2007 by learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar is hereby sustained. However with respect to the sentence imposed upon the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner has been facing rigours of the criminal case since 2003 and it further appears that the petitioner has remained in custody for a considerable period. On consideration of the said facts, the order of sentence passed against the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone by the petitioner.

¶19

8. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the order of sentence awarded to the petitioner.

¶20

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶21

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 03^rd May, 2018 MK/N.A.F.R.

Mohan Mandal v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Mandal v. State of Jharkhand

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

Jogendra Ravidas Vs State of Jharkhand

Abdul Salam Lokhu Sheikh Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Bashir Ansari And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Satyendra Prasad Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand

Vishwajit Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Praduman Kumar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Jogendra Ravidas Vs State of Jharkhand

Abdul Salam  Lokhu Sheikh Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Bashir Ansari And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Satyendra Prasad Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand

Vishwajit Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Praduman Kumar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abdul Salam Lokhu Sheikh Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.