Jharkhand High Court
Sangeeta Kumari vs Mukul Prasad S/O Janak Deo Prasad on 17 October, 2023
Author: Subhash Chand
Bench: Subhash Chand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Acquittal Appeal (C) (S.J.) No. 09 of 2022
---------
(Against the order of acquittal dated 22.12.2021passed by the A.J.C.-II, Ranchi in Cr. Appeal No.186 of 2019)
---------
Sangeeta Kumari, D/O Mr. Shrawan Kumar, R/O Q. No. C.D. 374/Sector-3, H.E.C. Colony, P.O.+P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.
Ranchi ... ...Appellant
-Versus-
1. Mukul Prasad S/O Janak Deo Prasad, R/O House No.6, Preet Vihar Cottage, Rani Bandh, Dhaiya, PO-ISM, PS+ Dist-Dhanbad
2. The State of Jharkhand ... ...Respondents
---------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
For the Appellant : In Person
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, A.P.P.
For the O.P.No.2 : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
---------
C.A.V. on 13.09.2023 : Pronounced on 17.10.2023
---------
The instant Appeal has been preferred on behalf of the Appellant-Sangeeta Kumari against Mukul Prasad and State of Jharkhand wherein the impugned Judgment dated 22.12.2021 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 186 of 2019 allowed the Cr. Appeal and set aside the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 16.09.2019 passed by the trial court in Complaint Case No. 1948 of 2010 whereby the learned trial court had held guilty to the petitioner Mukul Prasad for the offence under Section 498A of I.P.C. and sentenced with imprisonment for one and half year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of fine, convict was directed to undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days.
2
2. The brief facts of the Complaint Case leading to this Appeal are that the complainant filed the complaint against Mukul Prasad, J.D. Prasad, Malti Devi, Pushpa and Dolly with these allegations that the complainant was married with Mukul Prasad on 06.06.2009 at Ranchi in which the complainant spent approximately Rs. 8,00,000/- including jewellery/stridhan of Rs. 5,00,000/-. After the said marriage, accused persons took the complainant to the matrimonial house at Karai village, Police Station Karai, District-Nalanda (Bihar). From very first day at the matrimonial house the complainant was taunted and humiliated for bringing insufficient dowry and gifts for her-in-laws by the accused Mukul Prasad, Pushpa and Dolly particularly. Accused No.1 Mukul Prasad also taunted the complainant that the Car was not given to him by her parents. The complainant also came to know at her matrimonial house that her husband Mukul Prasad was working at Aligarh was not willing to continue his job there. Her husband was in habit of leaving jobs and he returned to Dhanbad or to his native village Karai. Her husband either on one pretext or the other created the situation in which the complainant had to leave her matrimonial home within four days from the marriage and came back to her parental house at Ranchi. The complainant while leaving the matrimonial home was not permitted to carry her stridhan. It was also assured by her husband that he would come in a day or two to bring her back to the matrimonial house at Dhanbad from Ranchi. The complainant had been waiting for her husband that he would come to take her 3 back to the matrimonial house but he did not turn up and even did not give his contact number and his whereabouts was not known to the complainant. In such a situation the complainant herself joined one Barclays Shared Service Private Limited at Noida Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter on several occasion the accused No.4 and 5 Pushpa and Dolly both contacted her parents and brother for dowry. In February 2010 J.D. Prasad the father-in-law of the complainant contacted the father of complainant and asked to send the complainant to Dhanbad. The complainant applied for leave to go to Dhanbad since the leave was not granted to her by the employer, she was compelled to resign from her service. Thereafter the complainant informed her in-laws that she had returned to Ranchi and requested them to take her back to the matrimonial home; but the accused persons never took the complainant to the matrimonial home and demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- as dowry in addition as to what has been given at the time of marriage. The accused No.1 her husband persuaded her to come at Delhi so that the issue could be settled between them. He came Delhi on 31.08.2010 and insisted for the demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- and he left the house of the complainant without taking her with him. Thereafter the brother of the complainant contacted to her husband Mukul Prasad the entire conversation was recorded which the complainant craves the leave of the Hon'ble Court to produce as and when required. The husband of the complainant also filed a Mediation Petition No. 46 of 2010 before the Delhi High Court Mediation Conciliation Centre seeking 4 the amicable settlement of matrimonial discords at pre-litigation stage. He sent one letter on 28.10.2010 to the brother of the complainant that he was coming to Ranchi by Shatabdi Express on 01.11.2010. Her husband came to her house at Ranchi on 01.11.2010 and again insisted the demand of dowry of Rs. 5,00,000/- and also misbehaved and manhandled her with the parents of complainant. On account of this behaviour of the accused persons she was forced to resign her job, however, with all hopes that the complainant was shattered when she realized that her husband and other accused were not interested to take her back to her matrimonial home for non-fulfilment of the demand of Rs.5,00,000/-. The intention of the accused to extract the money from the complainant for the said purpose he also sent several SMS to the complainant. In view of the above prayed to take cognizance against the accused persons for the offence made out of I.P.C. and to punish them.
3. On the said Complaint cognizance was taken by the court- below against the accused Mukul Prasad, J.D. Prasad and Malti Devi for the offence under Section 498A and 323 of I.P.C and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. The learned trial court framed the charge against all the three accused persons. On behalf of the complainant in documentary evidence filed Ext.1 (Invitation Card), Ext.2 (Letter sent by Janakdev Prasad in envelope dated 20.01.2020), Ext.3 (Resignation acceptance letter at Barclays Bank on 03.02.2020), Ext.4(Train ticket from New Delhi to Ranchi for date 06.03.2010) 5 Ext. 4/1 (Train ticket from Hatia to Delhi for date 26.03.2010) Ext.5 (Receipt No. 37824 of Kalika Bus Service, Ranchi Dated 22.05.2010) Ext. 5/1 (Bus ticket Dhanbad to Ranchi dated 23.05.2010) Ext. 6 (Bill of L.G. packers and movers dated 25.10.10) Ext. 7(certified copy of letter dated 9.2.10 of Gauna in MTS 12/11) Ext.8 ( certified copy Experience certificate of Sangeeta Kumari of Barclays Shared Pvt. Ltd. Dated 3-08-10 in MTS 12/11) Ext.9 (certified copy of sms sent by Mukul Prasad from 2-02-10 till 31-03-2010 by his mobile 9557134308 in MTS 12/11) Ext. 10 (certified copy of transcribed copy of the 1 st recording in MTS 12/11 Family Court), Ext. 11(certified copy of the deposition of P.W.-2 in MTS 12/11), Ext. 12( certified copy of Bail Petition of Complaint Case 1329/16 in the court of CJM, Bihar Sarif, Nalanda in MTS 12/11) Ext. 13 (certified copy of Cr Rev 208/17 dated 14/11/17 in MTS 12/11) Ext. 14( certified copy of Original decree in O.S. MTS 12/11 dated 07-03-2018), Material Exhibit I-CD, X1 (Xerox of invitation card), X2 (Xerox of provisional certificate) X3 ( Xerox of letter and envelope) X4 (Xerox of resignation acceptance dated 4-03-10) X5 (xerox of experience certificate), X6 (xerox of rail ticket), X7 (xerox of another rain ticket) X7 (xerox of another rail ticket), X8 (xerox of computer typed sms) X9 (xerox of bus ticket), X10 (xerox of e-ticket), X 11( xerox of Bill of LG logistics) X12 (xerox of Rail ticket) X 13 (VCD) Copy and in oral evidence examined C.W.1 Sangeeta Kumari and C.W.2 Sanjeev Kumar.
6
5. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. was recorded who denied the incriminating circumstances in evidence against him and claimed himself to be innocent.
6. The learned trial court after hearing the rival submissions of the learned Counsel of the complainant and the learned Counsel for the accused passed the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence on 16.09.2019 holding guilty only Mukul Prasad; while acquitted the accused J.D. Prasad and Malti Devi and convicting the accused Mukul Prasad for the offence under Section 498 (A) of I.P.C. punished with imprisonment of one and half years and a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine was directed to undergo additional imprisonment of 15 days.
7. Aggrieved from this impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence the convict Mukul Prasad preferred the Cr. Appeal before the Court of Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi and the same was transferred to Addl. Judicial Commissioner-II, Ranchi. The learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Cr. Appeal No. 186 of 2019 allowed the appeal of the appellant and set aside the impugned Judgment of conviction passed by the trial court and acquitted the appellant from the charge under Section 498A of I.P.C.
8. Aggrieved from the impugned Judgment of acquittal dated 22.12.2021 passed by the learned Appellate Court in Cr. Appeal No. 186 of 2019, this Appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellant/complainant on the ground that the impugned 7 Judgment of acquittal passed by the Appellate Court is based on wrong appreciation of the evidence on record. The learned Appellate Court had not appreciated the evidence on record in a proper perspective. The learned Appellate Court has set aside the order of the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court on the wrong appreciation of the evidence on record. 8.1 The learned Appellate Court has not taken into consideration the testimony of the witnesses who were examined before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in MTS 12 of 2021 Mukul Prasad vs. Sangeeta Kumari. From the very testimony of the witnesses who were examined before the Family Court in MTS 12 of 2021 the cruelty is proved on the part of the petitioner to have committed to the complainant/appellant herein.
8.2 The learned Appellate Court has not taken into consideration the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant/appellant herein in support of the allegations made in the complaint.
8.3 This plea was also further raised that the learned Appellate Court has not taken into consideration the conversation. The audio recording of the same was recorded over the mobile phone of the brother of the complainant and same was stored in the CD. The recording of the same was filed on record. The learned Appellate Court ignored the same and passed the impugned Judgment of acquittal. The Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is based on the proper appreciation of 8 the evidence on record, the same has been set aside by the learned Appellate Court without appreciating the documentary and oral evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant in support of the complaint. In view of the above, prayed to allow this Appeal and to set aside the Judgment of acquittal passed by the Appellate Court and to uphold the conviction of opposite party herein in the Complaint Case as passed by the learned trial court.
9. I have heard the appellant in person and the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and also the learned A.P.P. on behalf of the State and perused the material on record.
10. For disposal of this Appeal, the following points of determination is being framed:
Whether the impugned Judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Appellate Court in Cr. Appeal No. 186 of 2019 whereby the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court in Complaint Case No. 1948 of 2010 has been set aside and the appellant has been acquitted from the charge levelled against him is sustainable in the eye of law ?
11. To decide the legality and propriety of the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the court-below which was set aside by the Appellate Court and passed the Judgment of acquittal by the Appellate Court, this Court averts to the evidence on record adduced on behalf of the complainant in support of her complaint.
12. On behalf of the complainant before the trial court in evidence examined C.W.1 Sangeeta Kumari and C.W.2 Sanjeev Kumar the brother of the complainant.
912.1 C.W.1 Sangeeta Kumari in her statement under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. before the charge not only reiterated the allegations made in the complaint itself but also clarified and improved the allegations made which were not in the complaint itself. In cross- examination this witness says that on 09.06.2009 the Bahu Bhoj was done in her matrimonial home in the very village of her husband of District Nalanda. She stated in cross- examination that she did not mention that on 11.06.2009 her father-in-law made demand of INNOVA car from his brother. In her complaint she nowhere mentioned that for non- fulfilment of the said demand of Rs.5,00,000/- her husband had done Mar Pit with her. The marriage of her was with her consent. In para 62 of the cross-examination she stated that about one and half years ago from the marriage she had met Mukul Prasad; but she did not like him. This witness stated suo motu that she did not like the personality and service of Mukul Prasad. After lapse of one and half years having left the matrimonial house, she lodged this complaint. In para 58 of the cross-examination this witness says that her husband was an unemployed and she did not want to reside with him in a village.
12.2 C.W.2 Sanjeev Kumar in his statement before the charge under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. also corroborated the complaint case and in cross-examination this witness says that in the Mediation Centre his sister and Mukul Prasad both were called on 19.10.2010. The other dates he does not recollect. After the 10 mediation having been failed, this complaint was filed. In the in-laws house of his sister Sangeeta before 12.06.2009 there was no dispute on the issue of jewellery. Therefore, they made no complaint of the same to any authority.
13. So far as the testimony of Mukul Prasad in MTS 12 of 2011 Mukul Prasad vs. Sangeeta Kumari is concerned, from the perusal of the same, the allegations in regard to subjecting the complainant to cruelty for any demand of dowry or for non- fulfilment of the unlawful demand is not made out.
14. The Court also has gone through the transcript copy of the recording in the CD marked as Anenxure-3 which contains the conversation between Mukul Prasad and the brother of the complainant.
14.1 From the very perusal of the whole of this transcript, it is found that the only issue between them was to take back to the complainant by her husband Mukul Prasad. The issue was also where to reside both as husband and wife to restitute the conjugal relations between them. It is also found from this conversation that the brother of the complaint Sanjeev Kumar has also stated that his sister was talented keeping her in a village will be to give an end to her talent. At this her husband Mukul Prasad also replied that he was not forcing her to live in village wherever she likes she may reside. In this conversation issue was also to do job at some place at Delhi also where so that both could reside together. The dispute was also on the point that the husband of complainant was not in service. He has 11 stated that he has told this before the marriage and same was also agreed by the brother of complainant. It is also found from this conversation that the husband of the complainant was willing to keep her with him at Dhanbad but for the same his wife was not agreed. It has been stated by the brother of the complainant in this conversation that the father of Mukul Prasad had told them that his son was doing job. In reply thereof Mukul Prasad stated that it is false and before marriage it was told that he was doing no job.
14.2 As such from this conversation, it is found the only issue between Mukul Prasad and his brother-in-law Sajeev Kumar is on the point of not having job by the complainant and also not residing the complainant with her husband in the village rather to reside both together in Delhi or at such a place so that the talent of the sister of the complainant could be utilized.
14.3 There is nothing in this whole conversation in regard to any unlawful demand or any demand of dowry as alleged in the complaint.
15. Admittedly, the complainant resided in her matrimonial house from 08.06.2009 to 11.06.2009 i.e. only for four days at her matrimonial house in village Karai District Nalanda. Though the complainant has stated in the complaint that on very first date she was taunted and humiliated for bringing insufficient dowry and gifts at the time of marriage, yet there is no evidence to this effect that for the alleged 12 demand of less dowry she was subjected to cruelty by her husband or any family member during her four days stay at the matrimonial house at Karai in Nalanda rather the brother of the complainant C.W.2 Sanjeev Kumar in his cross- examination has stated that there was no dispute on the issue of the jewellery in the in-laws house of his sister Sangeeta Kumari before 12.06.2009. It was the very reason they made no complaint anywhere of the same. From the testimony of the brother of the complainant, it is found that there was no dispute in regard to the jewellery on which the taunting is alleged to be made in matrimonial house during the four days as alleged by the complainant rather the dispute arose after 12.06.2009. There is no evidence in regard to subjecting the complainant to cruelty by her husband during these four days her stay at the matrimonial house.
16. Herein the provisions of Section 498A also becomes relevant to produce here-in-below:
Section 498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
16.1 From the bare perusal of the provisions given under Section 498A IPC, it is found husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.13
16.2 The cruelty is explained in the explanation of this Section in two parts.
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
17. From the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant, there is no evidence in regard to willful conduct on the part of the husband Mukul Prasad to drive her to cause any mental or physical injury. There is also no evidence in regard to any harassment made by her husband Mukul Prasad for any unlawful demand of any property or valuable security. Though the allegation has been made by the complainant that the demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- and car was also made; but there is no cogent evidence in support of the same except the bare allegation of the complainant made in the complaint. From the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant and also the testimony of the witnesses whose deposition has been filed on behalf of the complainant of MTS Case No. 12 of 2011 Mukul Prasad vs Sangeeta Kumari, it is found that the only dispute between the parties was on the issue that the complainant was not willing to reside with the complainant with her husband Mukul Prasad in the village Karai of District Nalanda reason being she was talented being highly qualified as admitted by the brother of the complainant in the conversation which was 14 held over the mobile phone between C.W.2 brother of the complainant and Mukul Prasad. It is also found that issue between the parties is also that Mukul Prasad was an unemployed. Admittedly the complainant did not like her personality wise also having no job. On these two issues the both parties had parted their ways since no consensus was brought between them even before the Mediation Centre also which was held in the Mediation Centre Delhi High Court. Admittedly this complaint was filed after one and half years after having left the matrimonial house by the complainant herself where she resided only four days after solemnization of marriage. During these four days there is no evidence that she was subjected to any kind of cruelty or harassment.
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court held in Onkar Nath Mishra & Ors. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Anr. 2008(2) SCC 561:
Para 20. Section 498-A IPC was introduced with the avowed object to combat the menace of dowry deaths and harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband or his relatives. Nevertheless, the provision should not be used as a device to achieve oblique motives. Having carefully glanced through the complaint, FIR and the charge-sheet, we find that charge under Section 498-A IPC is not brought home insofar as Appellants 1 and 2 are concerned.
19. The Hon'ble Apex Court held in Preeti Gupta & Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. 2010 (7) SCC 667:
Para 30. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including this Court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society. Para 32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the 15 moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern.
20. In view of the analysis of the evidence on record, the impugned Judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Appellate Court needs no interference while acquitting Mukul Prasad has set aside the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court in Complaint Case No.1948 of 2010. Accordingly, this Acquittal Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
21. This Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Appellate Court whereby the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court has been set aside is hereby affirmed.
22. Let the court-below be certified with the Judgment of this Court passed in the Appeal.
(Subhash Chand, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 17.10.2023 P.K.S./A.F.R.