Ratnaker Bhengra, J
1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
2. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.08.2016 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in GR Case No. 219 of 2008 (TR No. 664 of 2016) arising out of Jorapokhar PS Case No. 21 of 2008 whereby and
whereunder the learned trial court convicted the petitioner for the offence under section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to
undergo RI for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code in default SI for three months and the
judgment dated 25.1.2017 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 131 of 2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad by which the learned appellate court
has affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court.
3. The case of prosecution is based on the typed report filed by the informant Reena Devi alleging therein that she was married with the petitioner on
22.5.2002 as per Hindu rites and rituals. After one month of the marriage the petitioner and her in-laws started demanding Rs. 20,000/-and to enforce
the demand she was tortured and ultimately she was driven away from her matrimonial home. Subsequently, she came to know that her husband has
married some other woman, namely, Adori Devi.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was accused with other family members for demanding money and harassing
and torturing the informant. He has further submitted that only the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced for being the husband of the informant.
He has further stated that marriage was solemnized on 22.5.2002 and the offence is said to be continuing since 2002 to 2008 and the FIR was lodged
on 23.1.2008. The learned counsel has further submitted that it has come on record that the victim was ousted from the matrimonial house in the year
2002 itself after staying about one month in her matrimonial house, therefore, the allegation cannot be sustained and it is totally false and doubtful.
5. The learned counsel has further submitted that out of eight prosecution witnesses PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 have been declared hostile. PW-
4, Puniya Devi, a neighbour has stated that wife has deserted the petitioner. PW-6 who is the informant herself has stated that she stayed for one
month in her matrimonial house and during that period the petitioner and others had tortured her for demand of Rs. 20,000/- and finally driven her from
the house. The learned counsel therefore says that when she stayed only one month in her matrimonial house, therefore, allegation of torturing her
from the year 2002 to 2008 cannot be sustained. PW-7 who is a member of panchayati has stated that the husband said that he wanted to bring home
the prosecutrix but she did not want to go with him. He has also deposed that during the panchayati it is suggested that if they are not resolving their
problems amongst themselves then they will have to go to Court. Both the parties could not resolve the dispute outside the court. PW-8 has stated that
after one month of the marriage there was demand of Rs. 20,000/- and due to non-fulfillment of said amount the informant was tortured and finally
she was ousted. The victim herself said that she was in her matrimonial house only for one month. It has not come on record that on which date
demand of Rs. 20,000/- was made and also by whom she was tortured and on which date she was ousted from her matrimonial house. In this case
Investigating Officer has also not been examined which caused prejudice.
6. The learned counsel has referred to explanation to section 498A IPC and submitted that from the evidence itself it cannot be said that there was
any willful conduct on the part of the husband to harass or torture his wife. Therefore, no offence under section 498A of IPC is made out against the
petitioner. He has further submitted that out of custodial period of one year the petitioner has already spent about six months in custody.
7. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that the informant in her deposition deposed about demand of Rs. 20,000/-
accompanied torture by the husband, mother-in-law, father -in-law and brother-in-law. Threat was also extended that if Rs. 20,000/- is not paid then
they will contracted second marriage of the petitioner. Panchayati was also held but they did not obey the resolution of the panchayati. The learned
counsel has also stated that the petitioner has also performed second marriage with one Adori Devi. He has further stated that PW-6, PW-7 and PW-
8 have fully supported the case of prosecution and, therefore, the petitioner is guilty of alleged offence.
8. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, having gone through the records of the case, it appears that the informant and her father in their
depositions have deposed that the informant had only stayed for one month in her matrimonial house while in the FIR allegation is of continuing offene
since 2002 to 2008 which is clearly not possible because she herself was not present in her matrimonial house during that period. The informant has
also not deposed about the date when demand was made, when she was tortured and also when she was ousted from her matrimonial house. It also
appears that the investigating officer has not been examined in this case.
9. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.08.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in GR
Case No. 219 of 2008 (TR No. 664 of 2016) arising out of Jorapokhar PS Case No. 21 of 2008 and the judgment dated 25.1.2017 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No. 131 of 2016 are set-aside.
10. In the result, Cr. Revision No. 361 of 2017 is allowed and disposed of.
11. IA(s) if any, stands disposed of.
