Back
2011 Supreme(Pat) 1821
PATNA HIGH COURT
Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.
Satya Narayan Prasad Sinha, Son Of Late Nand Kishore Prasad
Versus
State Of Bihar And Sushila Devi, Daughter Of Late Ram Chandra Prasad
Criminal Revision No. 302 of 2002
Decided On : AUGUST 30, 2011
The court emphasized the importance of territorial jurisdiction and the interpretation of cruelty in the context of Section 498 A IPC.
Headnote:
Cruelty - Criminal Law - Section 498 A IPC - [Section 498 A IPC] - The court discussed the territorial jurisdiction, limitation, and cruelty in the context of Section 498 A IPC. It held that the cause of action must have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the court and that the court can take cognizance of an offense after the expiry of the period of limitation in cases involving matrimonial offenses. The court also emphasized that cruelty for the purpose of Section 498 A IPC is to be established by considering the conduct of the accused and weighing the gravity of their acts to determine if it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. The court found that the petitioners had subjected the complainant to cruelty, and the decision reported in [2009] ACR 882 did not help the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant was subjected to various types of torture by her husband and in-laws for dowry. After enduring mental agony and inhuman behavior, she filed a complaint case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had subjected the complainant to cruelty and upheld the judgment and order of conviction.
Issues: Territorial jurisdiction, limitation, and cruelty in the context of Section 498 A IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the cause of action must have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the court and that the court can take cognizance of an offense after the expiry of the period of limitation in cases involving matrimonial offenses. It also highlighted that cruelty for the purpose of Section 498 A IPC is to be established by considering the conduct of the accused and weighing the gravity of their acts to determine if it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide.
Final Decision: Both revision applications were dismissed.
Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.
1. Cr. Revision No. 302 of 2002 and Cr. Revision No. 354 of 2002 arise out of judgment and order dated 25th January 2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Cr. Appeal No. 10 of 2001 by which the appeal has been dismissed with modification in the sentences to the effect that in case of default of payment of fine on the part of the Appellants, instead of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month each, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, as such both these revision applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Cr. Revision No. 302 of 2002 has been filed by the relatives of the husband of the complainant, whereas, Cr. Revision No. 354 of 2002 has been filed by the husband of the complainant, opposite party No. 2 in both the revision applications.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 was married to Krishna Kumar Sinha, the Petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 354 of 2002 on 12.6.1987 according to Vaidik rituals. During the course of marriage, the mother and the brother of the complainant presented 10 Bhar gold ornaments, 20 Bhar silver ornaments and several utensils to the Petitioners but in spite of that the Petitioners started demanding Rs. 25000/- and a scooter. She was subjected to various types of torture for the fulfillment of the demand. She went to her matrimonial home after marriage and returned to her Naihar after a period of 9 days. She again went to her Sasural Jitwarpur Railway Colony within the town and police station of Samastipur on the eve of Dashahara and stayed there for three months. During the period of 1988-89, she remained in her sasural for a period of about nine months. During this period, the Petitioners always abused and assaulted her for dowry. They also threatened to kill her if their demands are not fulfilled. In the month of Aasin, 1989, she returned to her Naihar with her brother. In the meantime, in the year 1988 the husband and mother-in-law of the complainant wrote a letter to the mother of the complainant with threatening and the demand of motor-cycle was exactly repeated. On 28.1.1990 the father-in-law of the complainant sent a letter to the complainant through Krishna Murari Sinha, Debar that her mother-in-law was seriously ill and had been admitted in the railway hospital and asked her to come there for looking after her. She immediately went to Samastipur with her Dewar and rendered the services to her mother-in-law. The mother-in-law became perfectly well, thereafter, the Petitioners again started assaulting and torturing the complainant. After 6-7 months, the complainant was ousted from her matrimonial home. She returned to her mothers home alone. It has further been alleged that she was not directed to take her ornaments and cloths. The relatives of Naihar of the complainant tried to make the Petitioners understand but in vain. Immediately before filing the complaint petition the complainant came to know that her husband, Petitioner of Cr. Revision No. 354 of 2002 has eloped with a married girl. The complainant suffered mental agony and in her helplessness and inhuman behaviour of the Petitioners drove her to commit suicide, she has to file the petition of complaint. The complainant is living with her mother and brother and has also lost her mental balance. She filed complaint case No. 406 C of 1994 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai on 8.6.1994.
4. After taking the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation, the case was transferred to the Court of SDJM. After enquiry, the Petitioners were summoned. Later on, after trial the husband-accused has been convicted under Section 498 A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment thereof he has further been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a perio
