Single judge held that failure to prove solemnization of marriage and demand for dowry indicated erroneous findings below. Criminal Revision Application was allowed, resulting in quashment of conviction and sentence.
Criminal Revision Application allowed; conviction and sentence of petitioner quashed.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 866 of 2010
Debendra Nath Panda @ Debendra Panda
… … Petitioner
CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
For the Petitioner : M/s. A. K. Das, Advocate For the State : M/s. S. S. Kumar, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : M/s. Satya Satakshi, Amicus Curiae
12/07.08.2023 Heard the Parties.
The petitioner has filed this application against the judgment dated 05.08.2010, passed by Sri S. K. Jha, learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.,-VI, Jamshedpur, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 168/2008, whereby and wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.,-VI, Jamshedpur, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.07.2008, passed by Sri S. K. Singh, learned S.D.J.M., Jamshedpur in connection with G. R. No. 695/1997, arising out of Sonari P.S. Case No 38/1997, 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 S.I. for 3 months.
The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of a complaint petition filed by the opposite party no. 2. Rakhi Behra which was referred to Sonari police station for institution of the F.I.R. The opposite party no. 2 alleged that the petitioner after marriage started residing in her Sasural at Sonari. Subsequently the accused person started demanding a moped and a transistor as dowry. To enforce the demand she was tortured and ultimately the petitioner was driven away from her matrimonial home.
2
In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both 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.
The opposite party no. 2 Rakhi Behra has been examined as P.W.2. She has stated that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner 5 year ago at Bhutnath Mandir, Sonari. After her marriage the petitioner started demanding a television and due to poverty her mother could not fulfill the demand and ultimately she was driven away from her matrimonial home. She has been cross-examined at length. In her cross-examination she has stated that she cannot state the time and date when her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner. She has stated that during her marriage Saptpadi was not performed. She has stated that demand for television was made in her Sasural by the accused persons after two-three months of her marriage and subsequently the petitioner dropped her in her in maike.
Sumati Behra P.W.4 is the mother of the opposite party no. 2. She has stated that the petitioner was married to her daughter as per Hindu Rites and Customs. They had exchanged garlands during the marriage. She has admitted in her cross-examination that Saptpadi was not performed during her marriage ceremony. She has also stated that the petitioner started residing in her house after marriage and thereafter he deserted her daughter. At paragraph 7 she has stated that her daughter was not pregnant from the time before her marriage.
Kamla Behra P.W. 5 has stated that the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 resided in her house for 5 years. She has further stated that the petitioner demanded a vehicle, a television and other articles. In her cross-examination she has further stated that she cannot state the date and time of their marriage.
Binita Devi P.W.1 has stated that the petitioner was married to the opposite party no. 2 and both resided in her house as tenants for 5 years. She has stated that the petitioner deserted the opposite party no. 2, after 1 month from their marriage. She has further stated that the opposite party no. 2 was pregnant from time before her marriage.
From the aforesaid oral evidence adduced by the
3
prosecution, it is evident that her marriage with the petitioner is doubtful, though she and her witnesses are claiming that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner but they are unable to state the date and time on which their marriage was solemnized. It is admitted that Saptpadi was not performed during the marriage ceremony and as per Hindu Rites and Customs Saptpadi is essential for a marriage to be validly performed. It further appears that in the complaint petition it was mentioned that the petitioner was demanding Moped and transistor. Subsequently in her evidence before the court the opposite party no. 2 has changed and alleged that the petitioner was demanding a television. Kamla Behra P.W.5 has stated that the both the parties had resided in her house as tenants for 5 years. Whereas mother of the opposite party no. 2 has stated that her daughter went to her Sasural and resided with her separately, rather petitioner started coming and residing in her house and subsequently he deserted her.
From the aforesaid facts, it is evident that the marriage between the opposite party no. 2 and the petitioner and demand for dowry has aslso not been proved. Accordingly, I come to a finding that both the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court have come to an erroneous finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner.
This Criminal Revision Application is allowed.
Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
Before parting, I would like to record my deep sense of appreciation for M/s. Satya Satakshi who has very ably assisted this court during the hearing of this revision application.
Member Secretary, JHALSA is directed to pay Rs.5,000/to her as remuneration for her services rendered as Amicus Curiae.
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
Saurabh
Uploaded
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the marriage was validly solemnized based on the evidence produced.
Whether the demand for dowry and subsequent cruelty against the petitioner were substantiated.
Whether the conviction and sentence under section 498-A IPC should be maintained in light of doubtful evidence regarding marriage and cruelty.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Debendra Nath Panda
The State of Jharkhand
Rakhi Behra
Ambuj Nath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court