Jano Mustafa @ Md. Mustafa And Anr vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr

Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

Heard Ms. Vandana Bharti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant and the petitioners have been convicted under Sections 498A and 323/34 of Indian Penal Code along with the husband. However, the husband is not the petitioner in the present case.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that to the best of his knowledge, the husband has served the sentence and no separate revision application was filed by the husband.

The learned counsel, while advancing his submissions on merits, has specifically submitted that so far as the father-in-law and mother-in-law are concerned, it is a case of no evidence against them and there were general allegations against other accused also, who were acquitted by the learned trial court on account of absence of evidence against them. He submits that accordingly the petitioners should also have been acquitted by the learned trial court itself. He submits that all the family members were made accused and four persons were acquitted and three were convicted. He also submits that only two witnesses were examined before the learned court below - the complainant and her father.

The learned counsel for the petitioners, while giving the relevant dates, has submitted that the marriage was solemnized on 22.11.2005 and a girl child was born on 05.11.2006. Subsequently, another girl child was also born. He submits that there is an allegation that in the year 2007 , when the sister of the complainant got married, the marriage ceremony was attended by the husband and father-in-law of the complainant, at that point of time there was some quarrel on the point that more articles were given to the sister of the complainant in marriage as compared to the complainant. He also submits that ultimately, the complainant was shifted to a rented house and it is alleged that even from the rented house, she was driven out by her husband.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in order to buy peace and after Panchayati, the complainant and her husband were shifted to a rented house, but ultimately they could not live peacefully in the rented house as well. As per the complaint, the last incident had taken place in the year 2009 and it has specifically come that she ultimately left the matrimonial house from the rented house itself.

The learned counsel also submits that there is no independent witness to the occurrence and there is no evidence as to the manner in which the Marpit had taken place. He submits that no weapon as such has been mentioned to have been used during Marpit. The learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioners have remained in custody for a period from 14.02.2014 to 07.03.2014 when they were enlarged on bail by an order of this Court dated 07.03.2014 and a few days must have been taken to furnish the bail bond.

Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2000) 9 SCC 245 (para 3) to submit that it is mandatory for the learned courts below to consider as to whether the accused deserve the benefit of being released on probation by furnishing bond under Section 360/361 of Indian Penal Code, but this aspect of the matter has not at all been considered by the learned courts below. He refers to Section 360(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure to submits that such powers can be exercised even by this Court. The learned counsel submits that so far as the present age of the petitioner no. 1 is concerned, he is 70 years of age and petitioner no. 2 is 68 years of age. He submits that considering their age and also the fact that they do not have any criminal antecedent and they have also suffered rigorous of the criminal case for a long time, some lenient view may be taken and appropriate orders may be passed by exercising powers under Section 360/361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State Ms. Vandana Bharti has opposed the prayer and submits that there are serious allegations against the petitioners and the husband of the complainant and it has come that belt was used to hurt the complainant. She submits that ultimately the complainant was thrown out of her matrimonial house. She submits that since there was specific allegations against the mother-in-law and father-in-law and the husband of the complainant, that is why only these three persons were ultimately convicted and rest of the persons were acquitted by the learned trial court itself.

The learned counsel for the opposite party- State further submits that there is also an allegation that the complainant was tortured not only because of demand of dowry but also because of the fact that she gave birth to a girl child and these allegations have serious consequences in the society and therefore, the petitioners do not deserve any benefit under Section 360/361 of Code of Criminal Procedure. She submits that the learned courts below, although have not specifically referred to Section 360/361 of Code of Criminal Procedure, but certainly the learned trial court has recorded the seriousness of the allegations and the manner in which it was committed and based the sentence on such consideration .

Arguments are concluded.

Put up this case on 07.09.2020 for pronouncement of the judgement.