Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Mohammad Rahmatullah Ali @ Md. Rahmatullah – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 17 of 2022
Decided on : 21-03-2024
CRIMINAL LAW - DOWRY PROHIBITION AND CRUELTY - IPC SECTION 498A, D.P. ACT SECTION 4 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 498A of the IPC, which addresses cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a wife, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which penalizes the giving or taking of dowry. The court interpreted these sections to establish that the petitioner had committed acts of cruelty and demanded dowry, leading to the conviction. The court emphasized the importance of the evidence presented, including witness testimonies that supported the complainant's claims of assault and dowry demands, which influenced the decision to uphold the conviction.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for demanding dowry and subjecting his wife to cruelty. The marriage took place on 13.12.2000, and the complainant filed a complaint in 2002 after enduring physical abuse and dowry demands, including a cash demand of Rs. 10,000 and a color television. The complainant suffered a fracture due to the assault and was treated in a hospital. Despite attempts at reconciliation, the complainant ultimately lived with her parents and sought legal recourse.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented, including testimonies from the complainant and her father, established the occurrence of dowry demands and physical abuse. The trial court's conviction was upheld as the appellate court found no reason to interfere, noting that the petitioner had not actively participated in the appeal process. The court concluded that the prosecution had satisfactorily proven the charges against the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was guilty of cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC and of demanding dowry under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and whether the evidence presented was sufficient to uphold the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence of the complainant and her witnesses sufficiently demonstrated the elements of cruelty and dowry demands as defined under the relevant sections of the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court emphasized that the absence of a specific date for the dowry demand did not negate the validity of the claims made by the complainant.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, dismissing the criminal revision petition and cancelling the bail bond of the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. This Criminal Revision has been filed for setting aside the order dated 22.06.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 2014 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-1, Khunti whereby and whereunder the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 26.03.2014 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. Khunti in Complaint Case No. 50 of 2002 has been dismissed. The learned trial court has convicted the petitioner under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred to as the D.P. Act) and has sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 3,000/- for the offence under Section 498A of IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 3,000/- for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall further undergo Simple imprisonment for three months and one month respectively. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
3. On 16.02.2024 a submission was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that both parties have amicably settled their dispute and opposite party no.2-wife is living with the petitioner for the last two years. However, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 had submitted that he has no instruction in this regard and if that be so, then appropriate petition is required to be filed and the matter can be sent for mediation. He had requested to post the case on 17.02.2024 so that he may seek instructions. Accordingly, the case was posted on 17.02.2024
4. On 17.02.2024, the learned counsel for the parties were heard again. when the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 objected to the submissions made on 16.02.2024 on the instruction of the opposite party no.2 present in the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the incorrect submissions were made on 16.02.2024 under the instructions of his client-petitioner who was present in the court on that day and therefore, the learned counsel as a person was not at fault. Ultimately, the matter was heard on merits of the case.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no specific date of occurrence with regard to the demand for dowry. He has also submitted that the marriage was solemnized on 13.12.2000 and Complaint Case No.50 of 2002 was filed on 08.08.2002. He further submitted that the complainant herself has exhibited talak/Khula (Exhibit-1) which was dated 20.04.2006 and it was her version that if some money and land were given to her, she would not pursue the case filed under section 498A and provision of Dowry Prohibition Act. He further submitted that the evidence before the learned court has not been properly considered and, therefore, the judgment of conviction is fit to be set aside. He also submitted that it has come in evidence that the complainant had remained in her matrimonial house till 2010.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties submitted that earlier also one F.I.R. was filed by the complainant which ended in a compromise, still the petitioner did not mend his ways. He further submitted that on account of the assault meted out to the complainant by the petitioner during which she suffered a fracture, she was taken to hospital for treatment on 07.08.2002. He further submitted that the argument of the petitioner that there is no specific date is not correct as specific averments have been made in the complaint petition which is supported by the evidence on record.
7. The learned counsel also submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts and there is no scope for re-appreciation of evidence and coming to a different finding. He further submitted that all the basic ingredients for the offences under which the petitioner has been convicted are s
The judgment reinforces the legal principle that evidence of cruelty and dowry demands, as defined under IPC Section 498A and the Dowry Prohibition Act, is sufficient for conviction, and that subsequ....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific details and corroborative evidence to sustain a conviction under Section 498(A) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
