The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that the factum of second marriage in the lifetime of the first wife was treated as an instance of cruelty against the first wife and it is not excusable, it is sufficient to hold the husband/petitioner guilty for the charge under Section 498A of the I.P.C.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized to the Respondent and after marriage, the complainant lived at her matrimonial home for about two months. Thereafter, her husband and other accused persons started inflicting cruelty upon her and she was driven out of her Sasural. The case was registered under Section 498 A I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act and the trial court convicted the Petitioner. Aggrieved by this, the present criminal revision is filed.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner contended that the conduct of the complainant was not cordial with the Petitioner and the Petitioner even filed an application for restitution of conjugal rites under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was dismissed due to the adamant behavior of the complainant. It was furthermore contended that all the allegations were false, and the trial court acquitted the offense under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, therefore, the demand of additional dowry and consequent torture meted to the complainant stands falsified. Also, not only the present petitioner but also the complainant has solemnized their second marriage and leading a happy conjugal life, as such, both are settled in their life in their own ways.
Contentions of the Respondent
The Respondent submitted that there is no illegality and infirmity in the judgment passed by the trial court. It was furthermore submitted that the dispute is pending since long, therefore, the prayer of reduction of sentence may be considered.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that it was determined sufficient to find the husband/petitioner guilty of the allegation under Section 498A of the I.P.C, since the fact that the petitioner's husband had a second marriage during the first wife's lifetime.
The court noted that the Petitioner restricted his argument only to the quantum of punishment.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that it is a fit case to reduce the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three years awarded to the petitioner, which is the maximum punishment under Section 498A I.P.C. into the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the revision.
Case title: Vinod Das @ Vinod Kumar Das V. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Case no.: Cr. Revision No. 424 of 2009
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Brij Bihari Sinha, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
