Smt. Sheela Devi vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

D.K. Sinha, J.—This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the order of acquittal of the members of the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 9 passed by Shri Uttam Anand, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in G.R. No. 417 of 1997 corresponding to T.R. No. 398 of 2008 by which the O.P. No. 6 (Praveen Kumar Singh) was acquitted from the charge u/s 494 I.P.C. and the remaining members of the Opposite Party were also acquitted], from the charge u/s 494/114 I.P.C. and it was requested that the judgment of acquittal be set aside and the case be remanded back for retrial.

The prosecution story in short was that the petitioner Sheela Devi was married to the O.P.No.6 (Praveen Kumar Singh) on 05.06.1988 and at the time of marriage several articles such as Rajdoot Motorcycle, Jewellaries made of gold and silver and utensils etc. were given to him. A daughter as well as a son were born to them after consummation of their marriage. The petitioner alleged in the complaint that her husband Praveen Kumar Singh developed intimate relation with his colleague Madhubala (Opposite Party No. 3) a teacher and the complainant used to be assaulted at the hands of the members of the Opposite Party whenever she raised protest against the conduct of her husband. She informed her father and the matter could be pacified after intervention. The petitioner alleged that her husband and in-laws started putting pressure on her to fetch a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for the repair of their house. She was again assaulted at their hands when their demand could not be fulfilled. On 10.12.1994 it was alleged that all the members of the Opposite Party forcibly obtained her signature on a blank stamp paper with the intention to convert the same into some document. After short while the accused persons got her husband Praveen Kumar Singh married to Madhubala at village Devaria on 12.12.1994. On information, the father of the petitioner came and tried to resolve the dispute but of no avail and in June, 1996 all the members of the Opposite Party drove her out from her matrimonial home withholding her all jewellaries which were later on given to Madhubala. The petitioner then preferred a complaint on 17.02.1997 before the C.J.M., Jamshedpur which was later on sent to police station and registered as Sidgora P.S. Case No. 22 of 1997 for the offence under Sections 498A/494/406/34 I.P.C. as also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Investigating Officer, however, submitted charge-sheet against the principal accused Praveen Singh u/s 494 I.P.C. and u/s 494/114 I.P.C. against the remaining accused and accordingly charges were framed against them. After they were put on trial, all the accused, who are the members of Opposite Party were acquitted by according them benefits of doubt end such order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court has been challenged by the petitioner informant.

It is relevant to mention as is gathered from the record that the prosecution had preferred a petition before the Trial Magistrate for incorporation of Section 498A I.P.C. as additional charge on the basis of the materials on the record. On the other hand the accused, members of O.P. herein contended that the petitioner-informant had earlier preferred a complaint being C/1-Case No. 896 of 2000 for the similar set of allegation in which cognizance of the offence was taken u/s 498A against all the 10 accused persons of Sidgora P.S Case No. 22 of 1997 and in view of that the Trial Magistrate by the order dated 18.08.2007 refused to incorporate the Section 498A I.P.C. as an additional charge against the accused and therefore the petition preferred on behalf of the prosecution was rejected and the informant did not prefer any revision against the said order.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned judgment of acquittal of the members of the Opposite Party mainly on the ground that despite there being the oral evidence of the subsequent marriage of the member of the Opposite Party namely Praveen Kumar Singh with the O.P. No. 3 (Miss Madhubala) the finding of the Trial Court that their marriage was not properly solemnized according to the Hindu rites and rituals, was wholly illegal. The learned Counsel further contended that there was documentary evidence in support of the allegation about their illegal marriage between Praveen Kumar Singh and Madhubala in the life time of the petitioner-informant Smt. Sheela Devi admittedly the first wife. The prosecution miserably failed to bring such evidence on the judicial record by exhibiting the same and thereby the prosecution felicitated the acquittal of the accused persons i.e. the members of O.P. No. 2 to 9 herein for the alleged charge.

I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment passed by Shrl Uttam Anand, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in G.R. No. 417 of 1997 corresponding to T.R. No. 399 of 2009. The learned Trial observed that the witness produced on behalf of the prosecution were consistent that there was demand of Rs. 25,000/- being the dowry and for that the complainant-petitioner was subjected to torture to meet out, but the fact remained that no charge was framed u/s 498A I.P.C. so as to meticulously consider the evidence of torture being extended to her.

The learned Trial Court further observed that to bring the charge u/s 494 I.P.C. it was necessary to show that at least some ceremonies as required by the Personal Law was performed and it was specifically testified by the informant P.W. 4 in the express words that no rite or ceremony took place for the alleged marriage between Praveen Kumar Singh and Madhubala, as such, the marriage between them could not be proved. Similarly, there was no evidence in support of the charge u/s 494/114 I.P.C. that the remaining accused persons the members of the Opposite Party herein had in any manner abetted the accused Praveen Kumar Singh to enter into wedlock with the co-accused Madhubala in the life time of the petitioner-informant and in that manner the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge against all the members of the Opposite Party beyond all reasonable doubts. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the observation made by the Trial Court in so far as charge only under Sections 494 and 494/114 I.P.C. was concerned and the learned Counsel for the petitioner failed to show any ground so as to call for interference in the judgment of their acquittal impugned and hence this Cr. Revision is dismissed.