JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Sanjay Prasad, J.
Sumanto Chatterjee @ Sumanta Chatterjee – Petitioner
versus
State of Jharkhand – Opp. Party
Criminal Revision No.821 of 2020
Decided on 23.1.2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498A – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 357-A – Cruelty – Conviction and sentence – No specific date of demand of dowry, assault in complaint petition has been mentioned – Demand of dowry has not been proved in absence of acquittal of petitioner under Section 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act – Even injury on face and eye of complainant is not proved in absence of any medical paper or examination of any doctor – No paper of treatment was brought before Court during her evidence – Non-production of any injury report and non-examination of doctor is also fatal to complainant’s case – Petitioner acquitted from offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. – However, complainant may be granted compensation under Section 357-A (3) of Cr.P.C. for meeting rehabilitation, livelihood of Complainant and her daughter – Compensation of Rs.15,00,000 awarded to complainant. (Paras 26, 27, 34, 35, 53, 55, 56, 57 and 60)
Result: Criminal Revision Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Revision Application has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Judgment dated 23.09.2020, passed by Sri Syed Saleem Fatmi, Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 2019, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Dhanbad has dismissed the Criminal Appeal affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29th July, 2019, passed by Ms. Ritu Kujur, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 1666/2010 holding the petitioner guilty under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. and thereby sentencing him to undergo S.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 498 A of the I.P.C. and in case of default in payment of fine the petitioner was directed to additional S.I. for two months.
2. The Case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant’s marriage was solemnized in accordance with Hindu Customs with appellant Sumanto Chatterjee on 10.05.2005. The parents of the complainant was compelled to give to accused Rs.1,70,000/- cash and 50,000/- for Hero Honda motor cycle, other house hold articles, furniture and jewellery of gold and silver were given at the time of marriage. After marriage, the complainant went to her Sasural and started leading her matrimonial life and gave birth to a female child on 10.01.2007. Thereafter behavior of accused persons changed in various ways. Complainant was thereafter asked by accused persons to bring money for maintenance of the child. She was compelled to demand Rs. 10,000/- per month and in between the only brother of the complainant died on 09.04.2009 in an accident then the accused persons started torturing the complainant mercilessly for Rs. 2 lacs for constructing home in order to grab all the properties of the complainant’s parent as there is none in the family of the complainant’s parents. It is further stated that when the demand was not fulfilled by the parents of complainant then accused persons on 02.06.2010 ousted her along with the child from her Sasural after brutally assaulting her and the complainant anyhow came to her Maika. It is further stated that complainant told about the fact then father of the complainant agreed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month, but inspite of that the accused persons started demanding Rupees Two lacs for construction of the house besides Rs.10,000/- and the father of the complainant denied to fulfill the demand of Rupees Two lacs, then accused persons threatened the complainant that if she wanted to live in her Sasural, she had to bring the same from her parents and forcibly took away the child of the complainant. Thereafter, complaint case was filed by the complainant against the husband and mother-in-law of the complainant. The Court below, after conducting inquiry took cognizance against the husband and mother-in-law of the complainant under Section 498 A/406 of the I.P.C. and Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Heard Mr. Sharad Kaushal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, learned counsel for the complainant.
4. Mr. Sharad Kaushal, learned counsel for the petitioner, assisted by Ms. Rishi Bharti, learned counsel submits that the impugned judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the learned Courts below have committed illegality by placing reliance upon the evidence of the witnesses of the complainant, who were the interested witnesses. It is submitted that evidence of C.W.1, C.W.2 and C.W.3 were contradictory to each other on the point of assault and torture. It is submitted that the complainant has stated of having been assaulted by the petitioner and of a blood clot mark on her face due to the same but not a single photograph or any piece of evidence was brought before the learned Court below. It is submitted that the court below has committed illeg
Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and Anr.
Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam
Cruelty – Non-production of any injury report and non-examination of doctor is also fatal to complainant’s case.
Insufficient evidence regarding dowry demands and cruelty led to the acquittal of the accused under Section 498A IPC, emphasizing the need for corroborative testimony.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal trials, the concept of 'cruelty' under Section 498A of IPC, and the evaluation of evid....
The main legal point established is that the definition of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code encompasses both mental and physical well-being of the wife, and actions leading to emot....
Offence of Cruelty - Conviction affirmed - Scope of revisional jurisdiction this court is not inclined to interfere with impugned judgment of conviction of petitioner under section 498(A) of Indian P....
Offence of Cruelty by husband or his relatives - Reduction of Sentence - Evidences against petitioners and gravity of offences committed by them petitioners do not deserve any leniency on point of th....
The court affirmed a conviction for dowry-related cruelty under IPC Section 498-A, establishing that previous undertakings by the husband substantiate ongoing abuse, despite evidential inconsistencie....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.