SHOBHA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the three Criminal Revisions referred to here-in-before in the cause title of this order is directed against the common order dated 28.10.2010 recorded by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, FTC.-II, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 291 of 2010 by which the petition filed on behalf of the Petitioners aforesaid under Section 227 Code of Criminal Procedure for their discharge of the alleged offence under Sections 341/323/313/316/498A/506 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was dismissed with the modification in the proposed charge. It was held by the impugned order dated 28.10.2010 that Section 313 of the Indian Penal Code was attracted only against the Petitioner-husband Dr. Kumar Niraj Prakash and the mother-in-law It was further held that no offence could be made out under Section 316 of the Indian Penal Code against any of the accused Petitioners but the Court found sufficient material to proceed against the Petitioners of all the three Criminal Revisions under Sections 498A/323/34/506 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code who are Niraj Prakash, Devika Lal, Shailesh Prakash, Shobha Devi @ Kiran, Vibha Kiran and Nibha Kiran Further prima facie offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was found against all the six named accused but at the same time by the impugned order the father of the principal accused Dr. Parmeshwar Lal was discharged from all charges.

(2.) The case of the informant-Opposite Party No. 2 herein was that she was married to the Petitioner Dr. Kumar Neeraj Prakash on 05.12.2007 and many items including jewelleries were gifted on the eve of her marriage. it was stated that at the time of engagement with the Petitioner Dr. Kumar Neeraj Prakash that cash was also given according to their demand but after few days of their marriage her mother-in-law and sister-in-law created trouble to her and on the protest there being raised she was beaten by them and was not even served food. Upon complaint made by her, the Petitioner husband also took the side of his mother and sister and then put a demand of Rs 10,00,000.- (Ten lakh) to be brought from her parental home. In the meantime, she conceived which put the Petitioner husband under depression. When her mother-in-law came to learn about the bearing of her pregnancy, she started abusing and extending physical assault to her. Her mother-in-law wanted that she be aborted because she could not be able to fetch Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten lakh). She further narrated that after two months of her pregnancy she developed gas and indigestion to which she complained about it to her husband who delivered two pills but within two hours of consuming such pills, her stomach developed pain with mild bleeding. On the next morning her husband-Petitioner No. 1 and the mother-in-law with the other accused persons took her to Capital Hospital and 'Research Centre, Ranchi where she was made to undergo abortion and there she could learn from the Doctor attending that her abortion had started in he house itself Her brother was called in there in the Hospital to whom a demand of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten lakh) was made lest, he was cautioned that his sister i.e. the informant would not be accepted in her matrimonial home as the Petitioner husband had to marry his sister Bibha Kumari from such amount. They left the informant Nutan Kumari there with his brother. On 05.07.2009 the informant with her brother and some respectable persons went to her husband quarter at Tipudana but he refused to keep her with him, however, she was called on 06.09.2009 to his house at Kokar where demand of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten lakh) was reiterated but when she expressed inability of her brother and mother to meet out, she was beaten in the room and all her jewelleries were seized by them'. Her brother was insulted and ultimately she was driven out with the caution that she would be accepted only on bringing Rs 10,00,000/- (Ten lakh) and a big vehicle for them. Thereafter, she was living at her matrimonial home for the last three months, but on 5th July, 2009 her husband came to her but became furious when called upon as to when she would be taken away by him to her matrimonial home and then he returned back She attached the medical certificate dated 03 07 2008 with her written report which gave rise to Bariyatu P.S Case No. 226 of 2009 on 15.09 2009 for the alleged offence.

(3.) It was submitted on behalf of the husband-Petitioner and mother-in-law of the informant Opposite Party No. 2 that no specific overt act was attracted against either of two so as to attract charge under Sections 498A/323/34/506/379 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Neither in her statement recorded under Section 161 nor under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure the informant alleged anything specifically with regard to the alleged demand of dowry as well as physical and mental torture perpetrated to her The alleged miscarriage of the Informant at the instance of husband and the mother-in-law has not been supported by any other independent witness. It was not the allegation against the mother-in-law-Devika Lal that she had at any point of time delivered pills to the informant which caused abortion after consuming it This allegation was directed against only the husband, as such, the proposed charge under Section 313 of the Indian Penal Code could not be attracted against the mother-in-law. The reason of miscarriage could not be assigned by the Doctor who attended the informant in the Hospital and therefore, the allegation of miscarriage could not be substantiated The case was lodged by the informant after 14 months of the alleged incident of miscarriage and no plausible explanation could be given by her of such inordinate delay. The allegations were malicious and frivolous against her husband and the mother-in-law and it was admitted that the brother of the informant was very much present in the Hospital and virtually had managed all the affairs of abortion at the relevant time He did not allege in his statement recorded under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure that either any pill or pills whatsoever was administered to his sister and thereby forceful abortion was made. The statement of mother-in-law was recorded in paragraph No. 28 of the case diary wherein she was silent as to the cause of abortion of the informant. As a matter of fact, the informant after solemnization of her marriage with the Opposite Party No. 2 Dr. Kumar Niraj Prakash, she never accepted him as her husband on account of his physical appearance, economical condition and family atmosphere and he was disliked by her It was the specific case of the Petitioner-husband in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 221 of 2010 filed by the husband Dr Kumar Niraj Prakash under Section 13(1)(ia)] of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 seeking decree of divorce that the marriage was never consummated and that she had totally deserted him and that she was carrying extra marital relationship with another person with whom she had affairs much prior to her marriage The Petitioner-husband had sought for decree of divorce on the counts of cruelly, desertion and her extra marital relationship.