Point of Law: Offence of Cruelty - Basic Ingredients of Ss. 498(1) and 323 - Merely because informant was alleged to be pregnant at time of marriage, it does not create any doubt on prosecution story of demand amount and torture of informant on account of non-fulfillment of demand. Basic ingredients of offence u/s 498(A) and 323 of Code have been satisfied in instant case beyond all reasonable doubts.

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Shekhar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.

3. The present criminal revision application is directed against the Judgment dated 02.12.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 21/2011 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pakur whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 52 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 has been dismissed and the Judgment of conviction and the Dispositional Order dated 30.03.2011 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Pakur in G.R. Case No. 685/08, T.R. No. 08/11, Pakur (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 147/2008 has been affirmed. The petitioner has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A)/323 IPC and he has been directed to be sent to the Special Home for his detention for a period of one year for committing the offence under Section 498(A)/323 IPC. The period of detention already undergone by the petitioner during the course of investigation, inquiry, etc. has been directed to be set off against the term of the aforesaid detention period of one year as provided under Rule 97(4) of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007.

Submission on behalf of the petitioner

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned judgments submitted that the impugned judgments are perverse in view of the fact that the learned courts below have not taken into consideration that the informant was carrying pregnancy of four months at the time of marriage. The learned counsel also submitted that apparently that was the reason for the case filed against the petitioner who has been convicted in an enquiry conducted by Juvenile Justice Board (hereinafter referred as J.J. Board). He further submitted that the impugned judgments are perverse and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was under detention for a period from 26.11.2014 to 01.04.2015 during the pendency of the present criminal revision petition and the petitioner was 16 to 17 years of age on the date of occurrence and was 19 years old on the date of judgment passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board.

Submission on behalf of the Opposite Party-State

6. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of Opposite Party-State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer and submitted that there are concurrent findings regarding assault as well as demand of Rs. 20,000/- from the father of the informant. He further submitted that even if the Complainant was four months pregnant at the time of marriage, the same by itself cannot be a reason to interfere in the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence. The learned A.P.P. further submitted that the manner in which the alleged offence has been committed, no interference is called for, inasmuch as, the learned Juvenile Justice Board has passed punishment of only one year for offence under Sections 498-A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

Findings of the Court

7. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the informant was married to the petitioner. On 16.10.2008 at 11.30 P.M. the petitioner called her in his room. She went inside the room and saw that her father-in-law Taijul Sk. was standing at a corner inside the room and her mother-in-law Lacho Bibi was standing near her son. The petitioner abused her and caught her by hair and demanded Rs. 20,000/-. The informant refused to oblige them and then her mother-in-law poured kerosene over her body and her father-in-law and her husband caught her hand and legs and pushed her down and thereafter, her mother-in-law lighted a match stick and threw upon her person. The sari worn by the informant caught fire, but the informant managed to escape from the room and her husband took Rs. 700/- which was tied in her sari. The in