DUSHASAN MAHATO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella Kharsawan on 17.12.2002 in Sessions Trial No. 329 of 1999 arising out of Kharsawan P.S. Case No. 05 of 1999, corresponding to G.R. No. 52 of 1999 by which the Appellant No. 1 Dushasan Mahato was convicted under Sections 493 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a term of five years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- ( ten thousand) with default stipulation and further, simple imprisonment for three months for his conviction under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The Appellant No. 2 Saraswati Mahatani was convicted only for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code but she was directed to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offender Act on executing probation bond of Rs. 2,000/- with two sureties of like amount each for one year to be of good behaviour and to maintain peace for one year.

(2.) The prosecution story in short was that that complainant-Pantua Kumari- P.W. 2 presented a complaint vide C/1 Case No. 107 of 1998 before the A.C.J.M. at Seraikella stating, inter alia, that she was the resident of village Baridih whereas the accused Dushasan Mahato and his sister Saraswati Mahatani were residing at village Chamrudih within the Kharsawan Police Station. The Appellant No. 1 was an employee of South Eastern Railway, posted at Tatanagar whereas the Appellant No. 2 Saraswati Mahatani though was married twice but she had left her matrimonial home and finally settled with her brother there. The Appellant No. 1 was on visiting terms in the house of Shankar Mahto, who was close door neighbour of the complainant and in that sequence he started regularly visiting her house which was converted into intimate their relation. Their such relationship could be lastly detected on 15.10.1998 to which a "Panchayati" was held at the instance of the appearance of the complainant, which was attended by the Appellant No. 1 Dushasan Mahato wherein he admitted in presence of the witnesses to accept the complainant as his wife and in view of that he executed "Kabulnama" ( deed of acquiescence) in proof of marriage but no customary rites for marriage could be performed between the complainant and the Appellant No. 1 Dushasan Mahato. She was then taken to the house of the Appellant Dushasan Mahato where she was ill-treated by the Appellant No. 2 Saraswati Mahatani and Dushasan Mahto did intercourse with her between 15.10.1998 to 16.11.1998. She was misbehaved, ill-treated and assaulted. It was alleged that she was confined in a room without food and was not permitted to mix with the villagers and ultimately she was driven out from their house on 16.11.1998 by saying that she was not legally married wife of Dushasan Mahto. The father of the complainant though tried to resolve the dispute and pacify the matter but of no avail hence the complaint for the alleged offence under Sections 493/376/323 against the accused No. 1 and under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code against the Appellant No. 2 Saraswati Mahatani. The complaint was sent to Kharsawan Police Station under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for institution of F.I.R. accordingly, Kharsawan P.S. Case No. 05 of 1999 was registered on 02.02.1999 for the alleged offence under Sections 493/376/496/323 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Charge against the Appellant No. 1 Dushasan Mahato was framed under Sections 376/496/493 of the Indian Penal Code whereas under Sections 323/498A of the Indian Penal Code against the Appellant No. 2 Saraswati Mahatani and both were put on trial. It would be relevant to mention that a separate charge under Section 498/323 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the Appellant Dushasan Mahto during trial.