Dismissed

Ashok Das v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Dec 2019Cr.Rev./961/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the confirmation of conviction under Section 498 IPC for cruelty against a wife. The Court held that specific evidence against the petitioner, including his conduct and the husband-wife nature of the relationship, distinguished his case from acquitted co-accused, finding no perversity or illegality in the lower appellate court's ju

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision application was dismissed, impugned judgment confirmed, and bail bond cancelled.

Ashok Das Vs State of Jharkhand — Matrimonial and Divorce | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Criminal Revision No.961 of 2008

¶3

Ashok Das son of Gulabi Das, resident of village Latasore, P.S. Mohanpur, District - Deoghar … … Petitioner Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶6

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Baleshwar Yadav, Adv. For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Adv. ---

¶7

04/18.12.2019 Heard Mr. Baleshwar Yadav, learned counsel

¶8

appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶9

2. Heard Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party - State. 3. This revision application has been filed against the judgment of dated 4/8/08 passed in Criminal Appeal No.117/07 by the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka whereby, he has confirmed the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 15/9/07 passed by the learned J.M. 1^st class, Dumka in P.C.R. Case No.80/2000, T.R. Case No.459/07 convicting the petitioner u/s 498 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years along with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment of one month.”

¶10

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the impugned judgment has submitted that it has come in evidence that the complainant was already married with one Pushan Das of Singra Village about 3 years ago and accordingly the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. The other point which has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the same set of evidence which was led before the learned court below, only the conviction of the appellant has been upheld only on the ground that the appellant is the husband of the complainant. The learned

¶11

¶12

counsel submits that the learned trial court had convicted all the accused persons under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code but the learned lower appellate court has acquitted all others except the petitioner. He submits that the case of the petitioner is similarly situated as that of the other co-accused and the learned lower appellate court has erred in law in sustaining the conviction of the petitioner and giving the benefit of doubt only to the other appellants. He submits that in this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order suffer from grave illegality and perversity, which are fit to be set aside in order to meet the ends of justice.

¶13

5. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, while opposing the prayer, has submitted that the learned trial court had convicted all the accused persons, but the learned lower appellate court had given benefit of doubt to others except the petitioner, who is the husband of the complainant by citing reasons that specific evidence has come against the husband (petitioner) and accordingly the contention of the petitioner that the case of the petitioner is on similar footing as that of the other accused persons is not borne out of record. So far as second marriage of the complainant is concerned, she submits that it has been mentioned in the finding portion of the learned trial court’s judgment that the complainant had denied suggestion of marriage with Pushan Das and accordingly, it cannot be said that the complainant had already undergone 2^nd marriage. She submits that there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment and accordingly, no interference is called for in the impugned judgments and order.

¶14

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after considering the judgments passed by the learned trial court as well as the learned lower appellate court, this Court finds that the first point, which has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the second marriage of the

¶15

¶16

complainant, is not borne out of record, rather, the complainant had denied the suggestion and such denial of suggestion regarding second marriage has been recorded in the judgment passed by learned trial court. It is not a case of the petitioner that such recording by the learned court below is contrary to the evidence. Accordingly, this contention is hereby rejected. 7. So far as other contention of the petitioner regarding the case of the petitioner being on similar footing as that of the other co-accused is concerned, this Court finds that the learned lower appellate court while considering the evidences has discussed specific evidences against the petitioner (husband) in order to sustain his conviction. This Court finds that the learned lower appellate court has recorded that there is clear cut deposition of the complainant that the petitioner (husband) had demanded Rs.10,000/-, due to non-fulfillment of the demand, she was being tortured and driven away from the matrimonial home. The learned lower appellate has also recorded that the conduct of the appellant during course of proceeding was also not fair because he got bail in the pretext of compromise and thereafter he left the complainant. The consideration of the evidences against the petitioner and other co-accused is mentioned in para 6 of the learned lower appellate court judgment which is quoted herein below for ready reference:

¶17

“ 6. On the other hand the case of defence is simply denial from the occurrence and false implication.

¶18

From the aforesaid evidence of witnesses it is crystal clear that P.W. 1 complainant has admitted in her cross – examination that her ‘Gotanies’ were living separately in mess and property. It is also admitted fact that Shanti Devi (appellant no.8) aged about 65 years was only mediator in the marriage no overt-act of any kind constituting any offence u/s 498 – A I.P.C, is assigned against her. Appellants no.2 to 6 are also aged persons between 40 to 65 years. Appellant no.7 Jiriya Devi aged about 50 years is ‘Gotani’ of the

¶19

¶20

complainant. As per evidence available on record against appellants no.2 to 8, there appears no substantive allegation against them, so far as appellant no.1 Ashok Das, husband is concerned, there is clear cut deposition of the complainant that he demanded Rs.10,000/- due to non-fulfillment of that demand she was being tortured and driven away from the matrimonial home. The conduct of appellant no.1 during course of proceeding was also not fair, he got bail in pretext of compromise and thereafter, left the complainant on her own fortune, being husband. (appellant no.1) was bound to keep his wife with all dignity, honour and respect the orders of court in view of compromise.”

¶21

8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case and the clear specific evidence against the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner is not on similar footing when compared with that of the other co-accused persons who have been given the benefit of doubt by the lower appellate court. Accordingly, the second contention of the petitioner that on the same set of evidence all other co-accused have been acquitted by the learned lower appellate court, except the petitioner, is also hereby rejected. No further illegality or perversity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of argument. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgments and accordingly the present revision is hereby dismissed.

¶22

9. The bail bond furnished by the petitioner is hereby cancelled.

¶23

10. Let a copy of this order be immediately communicated to the learned court below through FAX.

¶24

11. Office is directed to sent back the records received from the learned court below.

¶25

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶26

Saurav/

Ashok Das v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Das 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

Rabindra Kumar Karna Vs the Union of India through C B I

Brajesh Ranjan Sinha Vs The Union Of India Through C B I

Mahesh Chandra Pathak Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Superintendent Of Police Central Bureau Of Investigation Acb Dhanbad

Ajay Kumar Singh Vs Central Bureau of Investigation through Superintendent of Police

Basant Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of Jharkhand

Birendra Nath Mahto Alias Biren Mahto Alias Birendra Kumar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand