The High of Court Jharkhand recently comprising of a bench of Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary observed that the mere fact that the petitioner was acquitted for the offence under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on the technical ground of lack of sanction for prosecution has no bearing or effect on the aforementioned concurrent findings leading to the petitioner’s conviction under Section 498 A of the IPC. (Munna Ansari @ Md. Munna Ansari vs The state of Jharkhand)
Facts of the Case
Facts of the case are that it was alleged that at the time of settlement of marriage, the accused persons had again demanded an amount of Rs.50,000/- like cash, which could not be fulfilled by the father of the informant, and she was treated with cruelty both mentally and physically. Accordingly, the complaint was filed, which was sent to the concerned police station for investigation under Section 156 (iii) C.r.P.c and the charge-sheet was submitted under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The present revision application was directed against the Judgment passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, whereby, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner, so far as his conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned. However, the learned Lower Appellate Court has acquitted the petitioner for offence under Sections 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Contention of the Parties
Learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that most of the witnesses are the relative of the lady and accordingly, the learned court below has not scrutinized the evidence of the prosecution witnesses properly. She has submitted that although there is an allegation of harassment, the demand of dowry has not been proved before the learned court below. She submits that as the demand of dowry was not proved, therefore, the learned appellate court had acquitted the petitioner for an alleged offence under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Learned Counsel submits that the acquittal was done by the learned appellate court on the technical ground that the sanction for prosecution was not available and therefore the conviction under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 could not be sustained, although the basic ingredients for the offence were present. He submits that in the case records, the basic ingredients for an offence under Section 498A of IPC is made out and the present criminal revision application is fit to be dismissed.
Courts Observation & Judgment
The Court observed, “It has been argued that the petitioner having been acquitted for offence under Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, his conviction under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The aforesaid argument of the learned amicus is devoid of any merit in view of the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted for offence under Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 by the learned appellate court on the point of technical ground of absence of sanction for prosecution under the said Act. So far as the ingredients of the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code read with explanation (b) thereof is concerned, this Court finds that there are consistent findings recorded by the learned courts below regarding harassment of the informant-wife at the hand of the present petitioner with the view to coercing her/her father, to meet unlawful demand of money and such harassment was on account of failure by her/her father to meet such demand. All the prosecution witnesses have supported the demand of Rs.50,000/- by the petitioner. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the basic ingredients of offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code was fully satisfied and the learned courts below have given consistent findings and have rightly convicted the petitioner.”
The Court futher went on to observed, “the learned Amicus has also submitted that no independent witness or any neighbor has been examined. This Court is of the view that the learned courts below have duly scrutinized the evidences on record and the informant, who is the victim of the case, has fully supported the prosecution case and was thoroughly cross-examined. The other material witnesses also supported the prosecution case and were also thoroughly crossexamined. Merely because there is no independent witness, the same by itself does not make the impugned judgments illegal, irregular or perverse particularly when the prosecution witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case and the defence has duly crossexamined the prosecution witness and there was no material contradiction/inconsistency in their evidences.”
While partly allowing the petition, this Court observed that “the learned courts below in their concurrent findings, found that demand of dowry of Rs.50,000/- was made by the petitioner and there was torture of the informant on account of non-fulfilment of the demand from her parents’ side. This Court is of the considered view that merely because the petitioner has been acquitted for the offence under Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on the technical ground of absence of sanction for prosecution, the same does not create any impact or doubt on the aforesaid concurrent findings leading to the conviction of the petitioner under Section 498 A of IPC.”
This Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgements calling for any interference in revisional jurisdiction, so far as the conviction of the petitioner under Section 498 of IPC is concerned.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jharkhand_High_Court.jpg