IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Ratnaker Bhengra, J.
Krishna Karamkar S/o Suresh Karamkar and ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 363 of 2010
Decided On : 16-12-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120B, 498A, 323, 313, 511 – Punishment for criminal conspiracy – Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty – Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt – Hindu rites and rituals – Appeal is directed against judgment of conviction and order of sentence both passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-FTC No. I, in S.T. whereby and where under all appellants except appellant no.4 were convicted under sections 498A, 323 and 313/511 read with section 34 of IPC – Held, Conviction of appellant nos. 1, 2 and 3 under section 313/511 r/w 34 IPC cannot sustain and is hereby set-aside – Further conviction of appellant nos. 2, 3 and 4 under section 120B IPC is also set-aside – So far as sentence of appellant nos. 1, 2 and 3 under section 498A/34 of IPC and sentence of appellant no.1 under section 323 is concerned, Court find that supplementary affidavit has been filed and compromise between appellant no. 1 and complainant/respondent no.2 herein has been annexed to this supplementary affidavit – On perusal of compromise petition, Court find that complainant has stated that now she has settled dispute and she has no grievance – Hence, at this stage no custodial sentence is required – All appellants are discharged from liability of bail-bond – Appeal is partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Ratnaker Bhengra, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 10.03.2010 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-FTC No. I, at Ghatshila in S.T. No. 231 of 2007 whereby and whereunder all the appellants except appellant no.4 were convicted under sections 498A, 323 and 313/511 read with section 34 of IPC. Appellant nos. 2 and 3 were further convicted under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant no. 4 was convicted only under section 120 B of IPC. Appellant nos. 1, 2 and 3 were sentenced to RI for three years and fine of Rs. 2000/-each under section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and in default to suffer SI for three months each. Appellants no. 1, 2, 3 were further sentenced to undergo RI for one year under section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for two years under section 313/511 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Further, appellant nos. 2,3 and 4 were sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years for their conviction under section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case arose out of a complaint case being C/1 Case no. 96/2006 dated 18.06.2006 filed by PW-5 informant/complainant Janki Karamkar (Respondent no. 2 herein) filed before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatshila. The prosecution case, in brief, as per the complaint petition is that informant Janki Karamkar was married to Krishna Karamkar (appellant no.1 herein) on 5th of Shrawan month of 2005 as per Hindu rites and rituals. At the time of marriage, sufficient articles were given as gift and after the marriage, informant went to her matrimonial home and for sometimes informant enjoyed conjugal life peacefully. The further case of prosecution is that after four months, informant became pregnant and gradually she was unable to carry out the domestic work for which her mother-in-law and father-in-law, started abusing her. All of sudden, one day her husband appellant no.1 slapped her and asked to bring Rs. 5000/-from her parents in order to purchase a piece of land. Mother-in-law and father-in-law of the informant used to quarrel with the informant and used to say if she does not bring the aforesaid amount of money, then, they will remarry their son with some other girl. The appellant no.1 or the husband of the informant insisted her to get the pregnancy terminated to which she denied, then, her husband forcibly tried to administer medicine for the purpose of miscarriage but any how informant avoided the medicine. Lastly, on 28th June, 2006, informant’s husband said that he was incapable in providing medical aid in respect of her pregnancy and took informant to her parental home and left her there and thereafter, informant started living in her parental home. In the month of July, 2006, informant came to know that her in-laws were conspiring to remarry the informant’s husband appellant no.1 Krishna Karamkar with the appellant no.4 Shankari Karamkar. The informant came to know in the first week of August, 2006, that her husband appellant no.1 had remarried with the appellant no.4 Shankari Karamkar and since then both of them were residing together as husband and wife at the informant’s matrimonial home. The father of the informant went to the matrimonial home of his daughter on 13th August, 2006 and found appellant no.4 there, to which informant’s father objected, then, he was assaulted by appellants. Thereafter, informant’s father, informed the mukhiya of the appellant’s village, who, advised to go to the police, but, no FIR was lodged by the police and then the present complaint case was filed.
3. On the basis of the order of learned ACJM, Ghatsila, FIR being Ghatsila P.S. case no. 104 of 2006 dated 20.10.2006 was registered under sections 313, 323, 498A, 120B and 494 of IPC against the appellants herein along with Sidan Kara
The intent to commit murder must be proven beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under Section 307 IPC, and marital problems do not automatically constitute crimes without substantial evidence.
The court affirmed conviction under Sections 448 and 323 of IPC, citing insufficient evidence for rape charge under Section 376, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence.
The prosecution must prove mens rea and establish a common object for conviction under Section 149 IPC; failure to do so results in acquittal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of corroborated evidence in cases involving dowry demands and assault, as well as the requirement to prove the deceased's death with....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, the admissibility of evidence from a minor witness, and the consideration of proportional....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the intention of the accused to commit cruelty or abet suicide, and the evidence presented must be specific and cre....
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.