Fatik Kanti Gon vs State of Jharkhand

Heard Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Tapas Roy, learned APP for the State and Mr. Indu Shekhar Gupta,

learned counsel, appearing for the opposite party No. 2.    Â

This application is directed against the judgment dated 21.06.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dumka in Cr. Appeal No. 16 of 2007,

whereby and whereunder, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 23.02.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Dumka in

P.C.R. Case No. 124 of 2002 (T.R. No. 39 of 2007), convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code has

been affirmed albeit modification in the sentence only by directing the petitioner to make payment of fine of Rs. 4,000/-.        Â

The prosecution story in brief is that the complainant was married with the petitioner on 07.03.1995 at Village Kendua. It has been alleged that after

two years of their marriage, a male child was born. Further allegation has been levelled that the petitioner who is the husband of the complainant/

opposite party No. 2 used to regularly torture the complainant in a state of intoxication. It has been alleged that other accused persons also used to

torture the complainant with a view to performing second marriage of the petitioner. It has also been alleged that on account of apprehension of the

complainant that she would be done to death, she left her matrimonial home and had come back to her maternal uncle’s house. Based on the

aforesaid allegation P.C.R. Case No. 124 of 2002 was instituted in which after conducting enquiry, cognizance was taken u/s 498A/34 I.P.C. and

after charge was famed, trail proceeded.Â

In course of trial 07 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 1, Narayan Chandra is the maternal uncle of the complainant,

who has stated about solemnization of marriage between the petitioner and the complainant on 07.03.95. This witness has denied to have any

knowledge regarding the second marriage of the petitioner. P.W. 2, Hari Pado Mandal, who was the former Panchayat Sarpanch and P.W. 3,

Mahadev Mandal, who is the friend of P.W. 1 (Narayan Chandra), both have stated about solemnization of marriage of complainant with the

petitioner. P.W. 4, Kalicharan Pal, was one of the participant in the Panchayat held to settle the dispute between the petitioner and the complainant.

This witness has also stated about the marriage and subsequent birth of a male child. P.W. 5 is Chanchala Devi, who is the complainant herself. She

has stated that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized and after two years of marriage a male child was born. This witness had given details

regarding the torture and assault which was being meted out to her in her matrimonial home by the petitioner and other in-laws. She has also denied

about the marriage of the petitioner having been solemnized with one Mako Tudu. She has also denied that Mako Tudu has filed maintenance case

against the petitioner. P.W. 6, Haradhan Manjhi is a formal witness who has proved the signature of Ravindra Nath Sharan, Advocate on the bail

petition dated 31.07.2004 and another signature of the said advocate on the second page. P.W. 7, Ashok Kumar Manjhi, is a Photographer who has

stated that on 07.03.1995 he had taken photographs of the Barat and the marriage of the petitioner with the opposite party No. 2. This witness has

proved three photographs of the said marriage with their negative, which were marked as Exts. 2, 2/1 and 2/2.    Â

Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had ultimately denied his marriage with the opposite party

No. 2 and in fact the petitioner had solemnized marriage with one Mako Tudu who had also filed a case u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner. It has

been further stated that the petitioner has been examined u/s 315 Cr.P.C. in which he had stated that actually Mako Tudu is his wife, but the same

was brushed aside and the evidence of the P.W. 5, who is the complainant/ opposite party has been treated as a gospel truth.Â

Learned APP for the State as well as the learned counsel, appearing for the opposite party No. 2 has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner.Â

It appears from the evidence of the complainant which has also been corroborated by the independent witness that the marriage of the complainant

indeed was solemnized with the petitioner, which has also been corroborated by the photographs which have duly been proved by the Photographer

who has been examined as P.W. 7. Although the petitioner has given altogether a different story u/s 315 Cr.P.C., the same appears to be only in order

to escape from criminal prosecution. Since the complainant has been able to prove her case beyond all reasonable doubt, the petitioner has rightly

been convicted by the learned trial court for the offence u/s 498A of the I.P.C. The sentence which was awarded by the learned trial court of 02

years R.I. along with fine of Rs. 4,000/- has been modified by the learned appellate court in view of the fact that the petitioner had remained in

custody for 01 years and 10 months and restricted the sentence only with respect to fine amount of Rs. 4,000/- imposed by the learned trial

court.     Â

Since proper appreciation has been made with respect to the conviction as well as the sentence, this application stands dismissed. Â

 Â