SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Jhk) 1591

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RATNAKER BHENGRA, J.
China Mallik S/o Late Gulten Mallik - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cri. Appeal (SJ) No. 53 of 2010 with Cri. Appeal (SJ) Nos. 1375, 1431 of 2007
Decided On : 01-09-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. B.K. Dubey

The central legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of evidence related to confinement, rape, and mental cruelty, and the application of relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 to determine the guilt and sentencing of the appellants.

Headnote:

498A IPC - Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 - 344 IPC, 376 IPC, 5(1) of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 - The judgment discusses the conviction and sentencing of the appellants under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The court analyzes the evidence presented and the arguments made by the counsels to reach its decision. The judgment also refers to legal principles related to the offenses of confinement, rape, and mental cruelty, and their application in the present case.

Fact of the Case:

The case involves the conviction and sentencing of the appellants for offenses including confinement, rape, and mental cruelty. The victim was married to Mahendra Mistri and subsequently confined and raped by China Mallik. The prosecution presented evidence of the victim's confinement and rape, while the defense argued lack of evidence for certain charges.

Finding of the Court:

The court found Basant Mistri not guilty of the charges and acquitted him. Mahendra Mistri's conviction under section 5(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 was set aside, but his conviction under section 498A IPC was upheld, and he was sentenced to the period already undergone. China Mallick's convictions under section 5(1) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 were set aside, but his conviction for the offense under section 376 IPC and 344 IPC was upheld. His bail bond was cancelled, and he was directed to serve out the remaining sentence.

Issues: The issues revolved around the evidence of confinement, rape, and mental cruelty, as well as the applicability of various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 to the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the evidence presented, the arguments made by the counsels, and legal principles related to the offenses of confinement, rape, and mental cruelty. The court's decision was based on the assessment of the evidence and the application of relevant legal provisions.

Final Decision: Basant Mistri was acquitted, Mahendra Mistri's conviction under section 5(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 was set aside, and his conviction under section 498A IPC was upheld with a modified sentence. China Mallick's convictions under section 5(1) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 were set aside, but his conviction for the offense under section 376 IPC and 344 IPC was upheld. His bail bond was cancelled, and he was directed to serve out the remaining sentence.

JUDGMENT :

RATNAKER BHENGRA, J.

These Criminal Appeals have been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3.10.2007 and 5.10.2007 respectively passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra (FTC) in connection with Sessions Trial No. 139 of 2006 arising out of Simaria P.S. Case No. 25 of 2006, G.R. no. 227 of 2006 whereby and whereunder appellants namely Basant Mistri and Mahendra Mistri were sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years u/s 498A IPC and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of fine further imprisonment for six months and u/s 5(1) of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 further R.I. for three years and fine of Rs. 1000/- each and to further undergo imprisonment for six months in default of payment of fine amount and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Appellant China Mallik was sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years for offence u/s 344 IPC and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and to further undergo imprisonment for six months in default of payment of fine. Further sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years for offence u/s 376 IPC and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and to further undergo imprisonment for one years in default of fine and u/s 5(I) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 to further undergo imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and further undergo imprisonment for six months in default and all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case according to the fard-beyan of informant/victim (name concealed) PW-6 is that she was married to accused Mahendra Mistri of Village Jogiara, PS Pratappur, Dist. Chatra in the month of Jyeshth 2005 in accordance with the Hindu rites and her parents had given gifts to the best of their ability at the time of their marriage. She remained for 15/20 days with her husband in her nupital house. Her husband had been working in Kolkata since before. Hence, he left her at the her parent's place at Village Ranigunj, PS Imamgunj, Dist Gaya after about twenty days of marriage, saying that he is going to Kolkata for work and will return after working for some days then take her to his home, and thus her husband went to Kolkata. Thereafter, her husband returned from Kolkata in month of Shawan 2005 and without informing her he contracted another marriage with the daughter of Fagu Mistri of Village Angawan. When the parents of the informant came to know about another marriage by informant's husband then family members of her in law's in order to suppress this fact took informant to village Jogiara and kept her in the house of her uncle-in-law Phul Mistri. Thereafter about 15/20 days ago her husband Mahendra Mistri, his elder brother accused Basant Mistri and accused China Mallik came to the house of her uncle-in-law in village Jogiara and took her next day to village Ichchak where Mahendra and Basant used to live but they did not take her to their house rather took her to the house of accused China Mallik and left her there and went away. Accordingly, she remained in custody and confinement in the house of China Mallik for about 10 to 12 days. China Mallik confined her in his house under closed door and used to rape her every day and when she objected he threated to kill her. The villagers came to know about her confinement then they took her out from the house of China Mallik and informed the police. Police brought her, accused Basant Mistri and China Mallik to the police station for interrogation, but since she became mentally weak due to atrocities committed on her she could not tell true facts. Hence, she was left on written undertaking to live at the house of her husband's elder brother, Ratan Mistri. However, China Mallik was detained at the police station. She came to know later on that a warrant was pending against China Mallik so he was sent to jail. Her brothers came on 14.4.2006, then she was no longer fearful and made true statement regarding what had happened to her.

3. On the basis of far



































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top