In this criminal revision, the High Court of Jharkhand set aside the conviction and sentence for Section 498A IPC abuse. The court held that general marital discord and public insults do not satisfy the statutory ingredients of cruelty under Section 498A IPC.
Criminal revision application allowed; judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 326 of 2003
Bhamanand Sah ... … Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
For the Petitioner : Ms. Sharda Kumari, Amicus Curiae For the State : Mr. P. K. Chatterjee, Spl.P.P. ---------
06/20.07.2023
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has filed this criminal revision application against the judgment dated 09.01.2003, passed by Sri Rajendra Prasad, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau in Criminal Appeal No.138/1994, whereby and wherein the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau, partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner by upholding the judgment of conviction and modified the order of sentence dated 06.08.1994, passed by Sri Krishana Gopal Dwiwedi, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Daltonganj in G.R. No.466/1992 arising out of Daltonganj(T) P.S. Case No.158 of 1992, holding the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentencing him to undergo R.I. for two years alongwith a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the aforesaid offence, in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo S.I. for three months.
Learned Appellate Court modified the order of sentence by reducing it R.I. one year and set aside the sentence of fine of Rs.1,000/-. The period undergone in custody was ordered to be set off.
The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of informant Shashi Kala Devi alleging therein that her marriage was solemnized with petitioner on 18.06.1979. The petitioner was unemployed. In order to maintain her family, she started working as a teacher in Finix Academy School. It is alleged that the petitioner used to abuse her and invariably snatched money from her.
In order to prove its case, prosecution has adduced oral and documentary evidence.
Both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner.
-2-
Informant Shashi Kala Devi has been examined as P.W.3. She has stated that she was married to the petitioner. She has further stated that on 31.03.1992, the petitioner had come to her school and called her outside. When she came out side the petitioner abused her. On her alarm people assembled there. Police also came there and matter was pacified. She has stated that the petitioner used to assault her and invariably demanded money from her. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she does not want to reside with her husband. She has further stated that she wanted to marry an employed person. She has further stated that there was no sign of violence on her body.
Himanshu Shekhar P.W.1 is the brother of the informant. He has supported the case of the informant that the petitioner used to demand money from the informant. In his cross-examination, he has stated that police has not recorded her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
Sudhanshu Shekhar P.W.2 has stated that on 31.03.1992, on hallah, when he came out side his house, he saw that the petitioner Bhamanand Sah was abusing the informant.
Savitri Devi P.W.4 has stated that on 31.03.1992 on hallah when she come out side her house, she saw that the petitioner was abusing the informant. He also assaulted her.
Sudheshwar Pd. Singh P.W.5 has stated that on 31.03.1992 at 11:00AM, he was teaching in the school and the petitioner came there and started abusing the informant. In the meantime, the mother of informant came there and called the police. Police came there and pacified the matter.
From the aforesaid oral evidence, adduced by the prosecution, it appears that prosecution has been able to show that on 31.03.1992, the petitioner had gone to the school of his wife and called her outside and abused her.
As far as the allegation of taking money from the informant is concerned, it is a general statement made by her. From the tenor of her cross-examination, it appears that she does not want to reside with the petitioner, as she was not at all happy with the petitioner because he was unemployed.
-3-
Abusing ones wife publicly can not be justified. However, this marital discord will not bring this case under the ambit of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Marital discord is common in every marriage and every marital dispute can not be given the colour of cruelty as enunciated under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
Considering the aforesaid fact, I am of the opinion that the both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have come to an erroneous finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Application is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned court below is set aside.
Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
Before parting, I would like to record my appreciation for Ms. Sharda Kumari, learned Amicus Curiae has very ably assisted this Court in adjudicating this case. Member Secretary, JHALSA is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the learned Amicus Curiae for the services rendered by her.
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
Jay/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether marital discord and public abuse of a wife by an unemployed husband constitute the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bhamanand Sah
The State of Jharkhand
Ambuj Nath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
