Kailash Prasad Deo, J. - (1.) The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 12.01.2004 and order of sentence, dated 14.01.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No. 105 of 2001, whereby the sole appellant has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 498 A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, appellant has been further awarded rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and also rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. All these sentences are directed to run concurrently. By the same impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court has acquitted all other accused persons under Section 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also acquitted all the accused persons including the present appellant under Section 307 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
(2.) The prosecution case is based upon a complaint petition filed by Smt. Sunita Mandal, wife of the appellant before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Chaibasa on 14.01.1999, which was registered as C/1 Case No. 2 of 1999, against Pradeep Mandal and other relatives, alleging the date of occurrence as December, 1997 and onwards. The said complaint petition was sent under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to the Officer-in-Charge, Chaibasa, Sadar P.S. through S.P., Singhbhum West to institute a case and investigate vide order of the learned C.J.M., Chaibasa dated 25.01.1999. The complainant has stated that her marriage was solemnized with the accused/appellant Pradeep Kumar Mandal on 26.02.1997 at Chaibasa according to Hindu religion which was an arranged marriage. At the time of marriage, the father of the complainant has given the articles mentioned in the Schedule below to the complaint petition, as marriage gifts and a sum of Rs. 75,000/- cash to the father of the appellant. Thereafter, the complainant was taken to her matrimonial home at Hume Pipe Basti, Near Kali Mandir, in the town of Jamshedpur along with the articles mentioned in the schedule below. Soon after the complainant went to her matrimonial home, the accused persons started saying that the articles given to her by her father are not sufficient and up to their standard and thus, they have started demanding a colour television and a fridge and asked the complainant to demand those articles from her father. The complainant was knowing that her father is a retired government servant and could not meet the demands of the accused persons, therefore, the complainant kept mum and tolerated all inhuman torture given to her by the accused persons. In the meantime, complainant conceived in or about the month of August, 1997. The complainant with the hope that the accused persons would change their behavior towards her in course of time, but instead of changing their mind, all the accused persons intensify their torturous activities upon the complainant. Finding no other way, the complainant wrote letters to her father on 20.12.1997 and 22.12.1997, informing her father about such demands of the accused persons and the ill treatment given to her by the accused persons. On receipt of the aforesaid two letters, the complainant's father went to Jamshedpur to settle the matter. The father of the complainant told that after arranging money, he will give those articles to them and requested them not to administer torture to the complainant, upon which the father of the appellant has assured him, that in future they would not torture the complainant. It is further alleged that in spite of the aforesaid assurance, the accused persons did not change their behavior. In the month of January, 1998, the accused persons sprinkled kerosene oil on the complainant with a view to kill her, but the complainant managed to flee from the house and the neighbourers saved her. Further, the complainant could detect that her husband Pradeep Mandal has illicit relationship with one lady named Tulu and he is in the habit of drinking liquor. One night, the appellant snatched all the ornaments and told the complainant, that he will give those ornaments to her beloved. It is further alleged that the complainant was pregnant but she was not given any medical treatment nor she was provided with food by the accused persons. In the month of April, 1998, the appellant, Pradeep Mandal demanded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- for his business of electronic goods and asked the complainant to bring the said amount from her father. When she refused, she was brutally assaulted by him. Finding no other way, the complainant wrote letter to her father on 20.04.1998. On receipt of the said letter, the father of the complainant along with her brother went to Jamshedpur and seeing the pitiable condition of the complainant, they brought her to Chaibasa on 06.05.1998. Even at the time of leaving her house, Rita Mandal snatched her earrings and finger ring in presence of her father and brother. On 16.05.1998, the complainant gave birth to a female child after undergoing an operation. It is further alleged that, information about such birth of the female child was given but the appellant did not come to Chaibasa even to see his daughter. It has been further alleged that, instead of coming to Chaibasa to take the complainant and her daughter, the appellant sent a legal notice through his lawyer on 24.12.1998 with some false and frivolous allegation to save his skin and the said notice has been suitably replied by the complainant through her lawyer on 30.12.1998. That the complainant was under the hope that the accused persons would change their behavior and take the complainant to lead a peaceful conjugal life. The present case relates to the marital life of the complainant, she was in family way and as such she could not file this complaint earlier. But when she received the aforesaid notice from the husband through her lawyer, the complainant lost all her hope and replied the same through her lawyer. Due to this fact, a bit delay in lodging the complaint case has been caused.
(3.) On the basis of the complaint petition of the complainant, and upon direction of the learned C.J.M., Chaibasa exercising power under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., police has registered Sadar P.S. Case No. 21 of 1999, dated 13.04.1999, under Sections 498 (A), 307, 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.;