Allowed

Gurudev Nayak And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC17 Jul 2023Cr.Rev./80/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision challenging convictions under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC. The court set aside the lower courts' convictions, finding the evidence against the petitioners unreliable and the findings erroneous due to lack of specific details on dowry demands and uncorroborated assault allegations.

What did the court decide?

Judgment of conviction and order of sentence was set aside.

Gurudev Nayak And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 80 of 2011

¶3

Gurudev Nayak

¶4

Baneshwar Nayak (Abated)

¶5

Puspanjali Devi …... …. Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Sanyukta Kumari @ Gulapi .…. …. Opp. Parties

¶9

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶10

For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Akhouri Avinash Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. A. K. Dey, A.P.P For the Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Aditya Kumar, Amicus Curiae

¶11

10/ Dated 17.07.2023

¶12

Heard the parties.

¶13

The petitioners namely Gurudev Nayak and Puspanjali Devi have filed this application against the judgment dated 04.11.2010, passed by Sri Rajesh Kumar Dubey,learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Cr. Appeal No. 08/2010, whereby and wherein, learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.03.2010, passed by Sri Abhimanyu Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st class, Porahat at Chaibasa in connection with C-1 Case No.34/2006 holding the petitioners guilty of offences under Sections 498-A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby, sentencing them to undergo R.I for six months for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and S.I for three months for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶14

The petitioner No.1 namely Gurudev Nayak is the husband and petitioner No.3 Puspanjali Devi is the mother-in-law of opposite party No.2 Sanyukta Kumari @ Gulapi.

¶15

The petitioner No.2 Baneshwar Nayak who was the father-in-law of opposite party No.2 died during the pendency of this revision application and as such, the revision application as regards petitioner No.2 Baneshwar Nayak stood abated.

¶16

In order to prove its case, the opposite party No.2 has adduced oral evidence. Both the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioners.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners. It has been further submitted that all the witnesses of opposite party No.2 including her have stated that she is not

¶18

-2-

¶19

willing to resume her matrimonial relationship. Accordingly, it was prayed that this revision application be allowed.

¶20

Mr. Aditya Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the opposite party No.2 has submitted that opposite party No.2 and her witnesses have supported the fact that she was tortured to enforce the demand of Rs.50,000/- and a color television. Accordingly, it was submitted that the opposite party No.2 has been able to prove her case against the petitioners and as such, this revision application was dismissed.

¶21

Sanyukta Kumari @ Gulapi, opposite party No.2 has been examined as C.W.3. She has stated that after marriage, there was demand of Rs.50,000/- and a color television. She has further stated that her husband Gurudev Nayak resides with one Sahodara Devi. She has stated that when she went to the house of her husband at Chakradharpur, both her husband and Sahodara Devi had assaulted her. In their cross examination before the charge, she has stated that she cannot identify Sahodara Devi. She cannot state her age. At paragraph-25, she has stated that her husband Gurudev Nayak wants to resume their matrimonial relationship but she is not willing to reside with him.

¶22

Padamlochan Nayak C.W.1 is the father of opposite party No.2 while Kailash Chandra Nayak C.W.2 is her uncle. Both of them have stated that after marriage, there was demand of Rs.50,000/- and a color television. To enforce the demand, she was tortured and ultimately, she was driven away from her matrimonial home.

¶23

Padamlochan Nayak C.W.1 has stated that petitioner No.1 Gurudev Nayak had gone to her maike to take back his wife, but he did not permit his daughter to accompany him. Later on, when he went to the house of petitioner No.1 alongwith his daughter, they refused to receive her back.

¶24

At paragraph-22, he has stated that his daughter does not want to reside with her husband.

¶25

Kailash Chandra Nayak C.W.2 has also stated in his cross examination at paragraph-20 that Sanyukta Kumari @ Gulapi does not want to reside with her husband. Both these witnesses have admitted that the opposite party No.2 was never assaulted in their presence. They have also admitted that no demand was made to them.

¶26

From the aforesaid oral testimony of the opposite party No.2 and her witnesses, it is apparent that general and omnibus statements have been made against the petitioners that there was demand of Rs.50,000/- and a color television. None of the witnesses have stated as to who had demanded dowry and when the demand was made. Both the father and uncle of opposite party No.2 had

¶27

-3-

¶28

admitted that no atrocity was committed on the opposite party No.2 in their presence. Opposite party No.2 had made specific statement that she was assaulted by the second wife of the petitioner at Chakradharpur. However, she has admitted that she cannot identify the second wife of the petitioner nor she can state her age. This statement falsifies the allegation that the petitioner No.1 Gurudev Nayak has remarried and for that matter, he and her second wife had assaulted the opposite party No.2.

¶29

From these facts, the entire case of opposite party No.2 becomes doubtful. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that both the learned Trial Court as well the learned Appellate Court have come to an erroneous finding regarding the guilt of the petitioners.

¶30

This revision application is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Court below is set aside.

¶31

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

¶32

Before parting, I will like to record my appreciation for Mr. Aditya Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the opposite party No.2, who has very able assisted this Court. The Member Secretary, JHALSA is directed to pay Rs.5,000/to him for his services rendered as Amicus Curiae in this case.

¶33

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶34

BS/

Gurudev Nayak And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurudev Nayak And Ors. 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

Nirmal Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shailendra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ratan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bijay Kumar Nishad Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Baleshwar Kumar Alias Baleshwar Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mukesh Ramani And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.