JUGAL GOWALA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.12.1988 passed by the then 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nawadah in Sessions Trial No. 137 of 1987 convicting the accused appellant under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years.

(2.) THE case was registered at Rajauli Police Station on 20.7.1978 on the basis of the statement made by Maheshwari Devi (PW 1). As per her statement, she was at her house while her husband was outside to earn the livelihood. One day in the month of chaitra, Jugal Gowala along with the co -accused Rohni Devi visited her house situate at village Chautha under Ranauli PS and on the plea that she would be taken to her Husbands place, who was not visiting for long time, took her away from her house along with her children. She was taken to Govindpur within the district of Dhanbad and was confined in a room. The accused appellant persuaded her to have sexual intercourse and to contract marriage with him. As her husband has already been become invalid due to fracture of leg but according to Maheshwari Devi, she did not agree with the proposal. One day, the eldest son of Maheshwari Devi was beaten by accused Jugal Gowala and he managed to escape from the house and informed his father who recovered Maheshwari Devi and her children from the custody of Jugal Gowala. On the basis of the statement of Maheshwari Devi, a case was registered and investigation was made. Charge -sheet was submitted under Sections 366/114 of the Indian Penal Code. On commitment, charges were framed against both the accused persons. The appellant Jugal Gowala was charged under Section 366, IPC and accused Rohni Devi was charged under Sections 366/114 of the IPC. Both the accused persons were on bail during the course of trial. It was asserted on the part of the defence that in fact, Maheshwari Devi was a lady of questionable character, who voluntarily left her husband to remain in the company of Jugal Gowala and when she was driven away by the accused Jugal Gowala she launched the prosecution which was a blatant lie.

(3.) FOR and on behalf of the prosecution, five witnesses have been examined. PW 1 is Maheshwari Devi. PW 2 is Sukhdeo Barhi. PW 3 is Govind Barhi. PW 4 is Md. Nizamuddin and PW 5 is Ram Ratan Prasad. PW 4 Md. Nizamuddin is only a formal witness who proved formally the FIR. Ext. 1 and fardbeyan Ext. 2. PW 3 Govind Barhi happens to be the husband of Maheshwari Devi. PW 1 Maheshwari Devi herself and PW 3 Govind Barhi is the son of PWs 1 and 2. No independent witness has been examined in this case. It appears that Maheshwari Devi has given varying statements in her evidence and in the fardbeyan. From the totality of the evidence on record, it could be found that Maheshwari Devi was not having good relation with her husband as she did not visit her husband while he was lying in the hospital in the injured condition although she was living on the income of her husband being brought by her son. She remained with the accused appellant for a pretty long time and whereabouts of her husband was known to her son, but still she did not go out to meet her husband or to the police station which was nearby. The story concocted by her seems to be an after -thought and a manufactured one. According to her, she believed on the accused appellant and left the house to go away with him to meet her husband but she never stated that she made any attempt to meet her husband while she remained allegedly confined by the accused appellant. Her confinement also seems to be doubtful. She remained with Jugal Gowala with her own consent and freewill. In the cross -examination, she had to admit that although she had several opportunities to go away from the alleged confinement, she did not take the opportunity. The real story has definitely been concealed by the prosecutrix herself. Regarding sexual relationship between the two, she herself has stated that while she with her children was sleeping in the bed accused appellant was sleeping on the ground. The fact was supported by her son also. On close scrutiny of the evidence of three witnesses the husband, wife and son, it could be found that for some reasons and other there was some misunderstanding between the husband and wife and in that period, Maheshwari Devi remained with Jugal Gowala or took shelter with Jugal Gowala in a rented house at Dhanbad and afterwards might be for breach of understanding between Jugal Gowala and Maheshwari Devi or the misunderstanding between the husband and wife disappeared and then this case has been lodged. There is no evidence to the effect that the accused appellant Jugal Gowala enticed away Maheshwari Devi by applying any force. The case of deceitful means is tried to be depicted by Maheshwari Devi falls through on the conduct of herself as already mentioned above. In the facts and circumstances stated above, I do find that no case has been made out for any offence in the Indian Penal Code.