Allowed

Nand Gopal Ram v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC10 Aug 2023Cr.Rev./1049/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the opposite party failed to prove cruelty under Section 498-A IPC due to vague and general allegations about dowry demands. Finding the lower courts' conviction erroneous, the Court allowed the criminal revision and set aside the conviction and sentence.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Application is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence is set aside.

Nand Gopal Ram Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Revision No. 1049 of 2008

¶4

Nand Gopal Ram … … Petitioner - Versus - 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sangeeta Devi ... … Opposite Parties

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

¶7

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶8

¶9

For the Petitioner : M/s. Sharda Kumari, Amicus Curiae For the State : A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : M/s. Prem Mardi, Advocate

¶10

¶11

09/10.08.2023 Heard the Parties.

¶12

The petitioner has filed this application against the judgment dated 23.09.2008 passed by Sri G. K. Varma, learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Appeal No. 125/2004, whereby and wherein the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.08.2004, passed by Sri Ramesh Chandra, learned J.M.F.C., Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with complaint case no. 245/1996, holding the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentencing him to undergo S.I. for 2 years alongwith a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine he was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

¶13

The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the complaint petition filed by the opposite party no. 2, Sangeeta Devi alleging therein that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner in the year 1982. After one year of their marriage the petitioner started demanding Rs. 20,000 from her and after 13 years of marriage that is on 20.05.1995 she was driven away from her matrimonial home.

¶14

In order to prove her case, the opposite party no. 2 has

¶15

¶16

adduced oral evidence. On the basis of the evidence available on the record, both the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner.

¶17

Learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 submitted that she and her witnesses have fully supported the case that the petitioner had subjected her to cruelty for demand of dowry.

¶18

The opposite party no. 2 Sangeeta Devi has been examined as C.W.3. In her testimony before the court, she has stated that she was married to the petitioner in the year 1982 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. After marriage the petitioner started demanding Rs. 20,000/- and a scooter. To enforce the demand she was tortured and ultimately she was driven away from her matrimonial home. In her cross-examination, she has specifically stated that she has stayed in her matrimonial home on three different occasions only. For the first time, she had stayed there for 5 days, second time she had stayed there for 2 days and for the third time she had stayed for 15 days. She has stated that her husband was employed outside and he did not used to reside at her matrimonial home. She has also stated that she is not willing to resume her matrimonial relationship and she is not willing to live with the petitioner, even if he wanted to receive her back.

¶19

Surendra Kumar C.W.1 is the brother of the opposite party no. 2. He has specifically stated that he had brought the opposite party no. 2 to his house in 1995 on the occasion of his marriage and thereafter the opposite party no. 2 never went to her matrimonial home.

¶20

From the aforesaid facts, it is evident that the opposite party no. 2 Sangeeta Devi was never forced out of her matrimonial home. All together from 1982 to year 1995 she has spent only 20 days in her matrimonial home and that too spread around three different occasions. As far as the statement regarding the demand of Rs. 20,000/- and a scooter is concerned the same is general, vague

¶21

¶22

and omnibus statement. No particulars have been mentioned as to when the said amount and scooter were demanded from her.

¶23

Considering the entire facts; I am of the opinion that the opposite party no. 2 has not been able to prove her case against the petitioner for committing the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

Both the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court have come to an erroneous finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner.

¶25

This Criminal Revision Application is allowed.

¶26

The judgment of conviction and order of sentence is set

¶27

aside.

¶28

Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

¶29

Before parting, I would like to record my deep sense of appreciation for M/s. Sharda Kumari who has very ably assisted this court during the hearing of this revision application.

¶30

Member Secretary, JHALSA is directed to pay Rs.5,000/to her as remuneration for her services rendered as Amicus Curiae.

¶31

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶32

Saurabh

¶33

Uploaded

Nand Gopal Ram v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nand Gopal Ram 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

Premanand Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner

Kunal Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Awadhesh Sahrma Awadhesh Kr.Sharma Vs State of Jharkhand

Kalawati Devi Vs State of Jharkhand

Ashok Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Pradeep Kumar Chitlangia And Anr. Vs 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

Premanand Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner

Kunal Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Awadhesh Sahrma  Awadhesh Kr.Sharma Vs State of Jharkhand

Kalawati Devi Vs State of Jharkhand

Ashok Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Pradeep Kumar Chitlangia And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Awadhesh Sahrma Awadhesh Kr.Sharma Vs State of Jharkhand