Raju Das Vs The State Of Jharkhand

1

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 562 of 2017

[ Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.03.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, F.T.C., Bokaro Sessions Trial No.120 of 2014]

¶4

Raju Das .... .... …. Appellant --Versus-1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Aarti Devi …. …. …. Respondents For the Appellant : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P.

¶5

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶8

By Court

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of appellant that order dated 19.02.2024 for service of notice on the informant of the case (respondent no.2), could not be complied with as the appellant is daily wage labor and he could not get instruction in this regard from the appellant.

¶10

Under the circumstance, requirement of service of notice on respondent no.2 is dispensed with and learned A.P.P. will be heard on her behalf.

¶11

Judgment of conviction and sentence under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code is under challenge in the present criminal appeal.

¶12

As per the FIR lodged by the victim Aarti Devi on 01.02.2014, she was married to the appellant on 25.04.2003 and was blessed with two children from the wedlock. It is alleged that she had been subjected to physical and mental cruelty since after one year of the marriage also used to be assaulted by the appellant. The matter was tried to be resolved by intervention of the members of society and a Panchayat was also held, but the in-laws again asked her on 13.01.2014 to bring dowry of Rupees One Lakh and one motorcycle. When this was opposed, all her in laws including this appellant indiscriminately assaulted her. It is also alleged that an attempt on her life was made by dousing her with Kerosene Oil to set her on fire. Her wearing apparels caught fire, but somehow she poured water and could save herself. On 15.01.2014, she along with her family members complained about this to Barmasia Police Station, but there was no change in conduct of her husband. On 31.01.2014, her husband performed second marriage.

¶13

On the written report, Chandankiyari (Barmasia O.P.) P.S. Case No.23/2014 under Sections 498A, 494, 323 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and five other in-laws. The accused was put on trial for the offence under Sections 498A, 323 and 307 of IPC.

¶14

Altogether seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and relevant documents were adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibit Nos.1-7.

¶15

2

¶16

After the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The defence is of innocence and false implication, but no specific defence has been pleaded.

¶17

It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of appellant that the alleged incidence in which attempt on her life was made by pouring Kerosene Oil, was on 13.01.2014, whereas FIR has been lodged after inordinate delay of 18 days on 01.02.2014. The allegation of injury is not supported by any documentary evidence. It is further argued that although allegation of bigamy has been levelled in the FIR, but the same was not found true during investigation and charge sheet has not been filed under the Section 494 of the IPC.

¶18

With regard to the charge under Section under Section 498A of the IPC, it is submitted that the appellant is poor labour and allegation of dowry demand of Rupees One Lakh and a motorcycle coming after 11 years of marriage is without any factual basis.

¶19

On the point of sentence, it is submitted that the appellant is daily wage labour who support his family including his children and has already served more than six months of imprisonment during the pendency of the case before the trial Court.

¶20

Learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of conviction.

¶21

After considering the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and on perusal of materials on record, it is apparent that out of seven witnesses. P.W.1 and P.W. 2 who are co-villagers have not supported the prosecution case and were declared hostile. Prosecution case rests on the testimony of the P.W. 6-victim, P.W. 3- Geeta Devi- her mother, P.W. 4- father and P.W. 5- brother of the victim. All these witnesses have given consistent account of long history of harassment of the victim by the appellant. The deposition of witness reveals that Panchayti was also held and in C.P. Case No.460 of 2007, earlier filed by the complainant matter ended on compromise (Exhibit 3). However, this did not lead to any positive change in the conduct of the appellant and he continued to harass the victim lady.

¶22

There is some force in the argument advanced on behalf of appellant that allegation of dowry demand coming up 11 years after the marriage does not inspire confidence. However, as far as offence under Section 498A of the IPC is concerned, if there is consistent evidence of subjecting woman to cruelty as a result of willful conduct on the part of the accused likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical), such conduct will come within the meaning of cruelty. Although injury report has not been formally proved, but consistent evidence of harassment having been meted out by the appellant, is sufficient to bring the charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. I do not find any reason to differ with the finding of the

¶23

3

¶24

conviction under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶25

On the point of sentence, considering that there was no criminal antecedent or past conviction of the appellant and that the appellant is a daily wage labor and his family is dependent on him, this Court is of the view that period of imprisonment already undergone, will serve the ends of justice.

¶26

Under the circumstance, the appeal is dismissed with modification of sentence.

¶27

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶28

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, 11^th March, 2024 NAFR/Anit

Raju Das v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Das v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Prakash Sinha Vs State of Jharkhand through CBI

Harish Chandra Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Binod Oraon Vs State of Jharkhand

Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited through Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava Vs Union of India through Its Secretary Ministry of Labour and Employment

M/S.Heavy Engineering Corporat Vs Employee Provident Fund Oragan

Pravir Garg Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.