Ravindra Kumar Barnwal vs State Of Jharkhand

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 12.02.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Koderma in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed, whereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.05.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-III (JM), Koderma in T.R. No. 305 of 2013, arising out of C. Case No. 482 of 2010, whereby the petitioners have been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Sections 498(A), 379 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 2 ½ years under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and a further sentence of six months under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-with default stipulation to petitioner no. 1 and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and six months for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act with default stipulation to petitioner no. 2 and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and six months for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act with default stipulation to petitioner no. 3. Petitioner no. 3 was also ordered to undergo S.I. for one year under Section 379 of the I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the complainant was married with Ravindra Kumar Barnwal (petitioner no. 1) in the year 2008 in accordance with Hindu customs. The parents of the complainant had given dowry to the accused persons as per their capacity and after marriage, complainant went to her Sasural, where she was kept properly for four-five months. Thereafter, the accused persons started demanding a Bolero jeep and a cash of Rs. One Lac from the complainant. The complainant gave information about the said demand to her parents and the parents of the complainant showed their inability to fulfill the said demand, so the accused persons started assaulting her on various ways. In the meanwhile, the complainant gave birth to a girl child, but the accused persons took no care of her, they used to stop providing food to her and ultimately, she was driven out from her matrimonial house. The complainant and her father tried to settle the dispute, but the accused persons were rigid on the demand and at last the complainant was compelled to file this Complaint in the court.

The learned CJM took cognizance of the case and transferred the case record to the J.M., 1st Class, Koderma for inquiry and disposal, where the Court after inquiry found prima facie case under Section 498A, 379 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused persons. The statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The cognizance in this case was taken against four accused persons, but case record of one accused Dulari Kumari, who was found to be juvenile was split up and sent to Juvenile Justice Board, so only three accused persons namely, Ravindra Kumar Barnwal (Petitioner no. 1), Indradeo Modi (petitioner no. 2) and Sushila Devi (petitioner no. 3) are facing trial in the present case.

After conclusion of trial, the petitioners were held guilty for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and petitioner no. 3 was also held guilty for the offence under Section 379 of the I.P.C. and sentenced as aforesaid.

Assailing their conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2013 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Koderma, which was heard and disposed of vide judgment dated 12.02.2015, the appeal of the petitioners were dismissed and their conviction and sentence was upheld and confirmed, which has been assailed in this revision.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that neither in the complaint nor in the evidence of victim any specific overt act has been attributed against any of the petitioners. There was very cordial relationship between husband and wife with all the family members and they were blessed with a female child, but due to quarrelsome nature, the informant voluntarily left her matrimonial home and never joined the company of her husband, inspite of several attempts made by the petitioners. As per complainant, the date of alleged occurrence was 17.07.2009, but there is no any explanation in the entire complaint petition for filing the complaint after lapse of inordinate delay of 369 days on 20.07.2010. The petitioners have never demanded any dowry from the victim or her parents. No injury report showing physical assault has been brought on record. No circumstances have been proved showing any grave misconduct of the petitioners or husband of the victim, which were likely to drive her to commit suicide or was dangerous to her life or limb. So far allegation against her father-in-law and mother-in-law are concerned, general and omnibus allegation has been levelled.

This is a burning case of misuse of provision of Section 498A of the I.P.C., wherein not only the husband but his old parents have been dragged and roped with false allegations. The petitioner no. 1 has remained in custody for more than 2 ¼ years and petitioner nos. 2 & 3 have also undergone about one month custody without any rhyme and reason. The instant revision has merits showing perversity in the judgment of trial court as well as appellate court. Hence, this revision may be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgments and order passed by the learned trial court as well as appellate court.

On the other hand, learned counsel A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that both the courts below have aptly analyze and appreciate the evidence of ocular witnesses and arrived at conclusion. There is concurrent finding of fact against the petitioners and there is no merit in this revision, which is fit to be dismissed.

I have gone through the record of the case and perused the oral as well as documentary evidence along with impugned judgments passed by the learned trial court as well as appellate court. It appears that there is concurrent finding of fact that petitioner no. 1, Ravindra Kumar Barnwal (husband) had subjected the opposite party no. 2 (wife) to cruelty for demand of dowry. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction with respect to petitioner no. 1 Ravindra Kumar Barnwal is hereby upheld.

So far sentence awarded to the petitioner no. 1 is concerned, admittedly out of 2 ½ years simple imprisonment, he has sustained substantial part of the imprisonment to the extent of 2 ¼ during course of trial and during pendency of the appeal and revision.

It appears that the occurrence is of the year 2010 and about 14 years has been elapsed. The petitioner no. 1 has sustained agony of trial for the aforesaid period and also remained in custody for about 2 ¼ years.

Under the aforementioned circumstances, in the interest of justice, the imprisonment already undergone by petitioner no. 1, Ravindra Kumar Barnwal appears to be sufficient punishment for the offence committed by him.

Accordingly, the sentence awarded to the petitioner no. 1, Ravindra Kumar Barnwal is modified to the extent that instead of awarding sentence as awarded by learned trial court and affirmed by learned appellate court, the petitioner no. 1 is sentenced for the imprisonment already undergone for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Petitioner no. 1 is on bail, as such, he shall be discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties shall also be discharged.

So far as petitioner nos. 2 & 3 namely, Indradeo Modi and Sushila Devi are concerned, there is no direct allegation that they have demanded anything from the opposite party no. 2, rather it is alleged that they have abetted their son to ask for four-wheeler and one lakh rupees. There is general and vague allegation alleged against the father-in-law and mother-in-law and no charge for abetment has been framed, as such, no offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. is constituted against them and even Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

So far offence under Section 379 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner no. 3, Sushila Devi is concerned, there is no definite particulars about what property was taken by her mother-in-law, which is alleged to be stri-dhan of the opposite party no. 2, as such, no offence under Section 379 of the I.P.C. is constituted.

In view of discussions and reasons, the impugned judgment so far as petitioner nos. 2 & 3 namely, Indradeo Modi and Sushila Devi are concerned is hereby set aside. Petitioner nos. 2 & 3 are acquitted from the charges levelled against them.

With the aforesaid observations, this criminal revision is partly allowed.

Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to the court concerned for information and needful.