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

2017 Supreme(Tri) 104

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Sri Rakesh Ghose, son of late Gouraanga Chandra Shil - Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Tripura - Respondent
CRL. REV. P. NO.34 OF 2014
Decided On : 18-01-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. R. Pal, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. R.C. Debnath, Addl. P.P.

Continuous cruelty by the petitioner established the offence under Section 498A of the IPC, leading to the affirmation of the conviction and the modification of the sentence.

Headnote:

Criminal Revision - Section 498A IPC - [IPC Section 498A] - The court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 498A of the IPC. The court found that the victim was subjected to continuous cruelty by the petitioner, establishing the offence under Section 498A. The court interfered with the sentence imposed by the trial and appellate court, substituting it with 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner and his mother were convicted and sentenced under Section 498A of the IPC for subjecting the petitioner's wife to mental and physical torture over dowry demands. The petitioner's mother's conviction was reversed, but the petitioner's conviction was affirmed. The petitioner filed a revision petition challenging the judgment and order.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the victim was subjected to continuous cruelty by the petitioner, establishing the offence under Section 498A of the IPC. The court interfered with the sentence imposed by the trial and appellate court, substituting it with 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000.

Issues: The main issue was whether there was evidence against the petitioner of committing cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the victim was harassed by the petitioner on unlawful demand, subjected to physical and mental torture, constituting cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the IPC. The court also considered the age and nature of the offence in modifying the sentence.

Final Decision: The revision petition was partly allowed with modification in the sentence, substituting it with 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

1. To challenge the judgment and order dated 04.03.2014 delivered in Criminal Appeal 50(4) of 2013 this criminal revision petition has been preferred by the convict, herein after referred to as the petitioner. By the said judgment dated 04.03.2014, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.09.2013 delivered in P.R.C. 1100 of 2011 by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Agartala, West Tripura, Court No.7 has been partly affirmed. By the impugned judgment dated 24.09.2013 the petitioner and his mother Smt. Kalpana Ghosh was convicted and sentenced under section 498A of the IPC. But by the impugned order the Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala has reversed the finding of conviction of the petitioner’s mother and quashed the sentence. However, the conviction and sentence as returned by the trial court in respect of the petitioner has been affirmed by the Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala by the said judgment.

2. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this revision petition. For having the perspective of the challenge, the prosecution’s case may briefly be introduced at the outset. The petitioner’s wife filed a complaint to the Officer-in-Charge, Radhapur police station [Exbt-1] disclosing that after her marriage with the petitioner she was subjected to mental and physical torture ‘over petty issues’. The petitioner and other inmates started harassing her for realising unlawful demand of a huge sum. The complainant’s father paid Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner in the year 2009. For the few days, there was no on instigation of his mother, the petitioner started assaulting her again few days before the Durga puja of the year 2009. The cruel acts of the petitioner were informed to the local Panchayat and the State Commission for Women. At the advice of the State Commission for Women, the petitioner and the complainant started living in a rented house. But she was also not happy there. They stayed in the rented house for about 3(three) months. The mother-in-law of the complainant used to come to that rented house often-times on and started assaulting the victim for coercing her to bring hard cash from her father as dowry. Since the complainant’s father is a daily labourer, he expressed his inability to pay the money. Both the accused person [the petitioner] and his mother started physically assaulting her by with fists, slapping and kicking her on keeping the door bolted from inside on the night of 24.09.2011. The complainant somehow saved her and took shelter on the following morning in the house of her father. After about 20(twenty) days, the complainant lodged the ejahar in the police station i.e on 17.10.11. Based on the said written ejahar, Radhapur P.S. Case No.17 of 2011 under Section 498A of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation. On completion of investigation, against both the accused persons chargesheet was filed under Section 498A of the IPC. On taking cognizance, the trial court framed the charge against the accused persons under Section 498A of the IPC, to which both the accused persons pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried.

3. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution adduced as many as 7(seven) witnesses including the complainant [PW-1], her father [PW-3] and her mother [PW-6]. After the prosecution evidence was recorded by the trial court both the accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., when they repeated their plea of innocence and stated that they have been falsely implicated by the complainant. The trial court thereafter on appreciation of the evidence returned the finding of the conviction against both the accused persons under Section 498A of the IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1(one) year. The prosecution has not challenged the said sentence, even though the sentence prescribed for commission of the offence under Section 498A is ‘imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and sh
















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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top