Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO.105 OF 2001 =========================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 12TH DECEMBER, 2000 PASSED BY SHRI BRAJ KISHORE PRASAD GUPTA, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE IV, MUZAFFARPUR IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 365 OF 1999 ARISING OUT OF MANIYARY POLICE STATION CASE NO. 33 OF 1993 =========================================================== RANJEET THAKUR @ RANJEET KUMAR THAKUR, SON OF LAL NARAIN THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AGANAGAR, POLICE STATION MANIYARI, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR .. APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... RESPONDENT =========================================================== APPEARANCE : FOR THE APPELLANT : MR. ARUN KR. TRIPATHI, AMICUS CURIAE FOR THE S T A T E : MS. ABHA SINGH, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 06-11-2012 Sheema Ali Khan, J. Nobody appears on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal. Accordingly, Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi, Advocate is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court in this appeal on behalf of the appellant. 2. The sole appellant, who is the husband of the victim girl, has been found guilty for offences under [STATUTE] and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and two years respectively. 3. The victim girl Chunchun Devi was married to the appellant Ranjeet Thakur in the year 1990. At the time of marriage, her father had given her gifts etc. She was blessed with a baby boy Sonu, who was one year of age at the time when the occurrence took place. The informant, who is the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.105 of 2001 dt.06-11-2012 2 / 4 2 father of the victim girl, alleges that after sometime of the marriage, the In-laws of the victim girl including the husband began to demand a coloured television, cash and a gold ring. It is said that Chunchun was tortured by her husband and In-laws because of the non-fulfillment of the said demand. She was often assaulted and on one occasion, after assault, she was put on a richshaw and sent home. Her In-laws kept her son back and only after intervention of the villagers, Chunchun Devi was able to get her son. At the time of marriage of the son of the informant, the appellant came to the house of the informant and stayed with his wife for about a month. After which, he took his wife back to his house. The informant kept his grandson with him as his daughter had told her father that he should not send her son back with her until she gives a green signal. After a couple of days, the appellant came to the house of the informant and demanded that his son should be returned to him. The informant refused to return his son. On 06.07.1993, the informant heard rumours that his daughter had been killed and left in her husband’s house, whereas all the accused persons had absconded from the place of occurrence. The informant went to the village Aganagar and with the help of the villagers, he climbed the roof and saw that his daughter was lying dead on a sheet in the courtyard/room. The In-laws and the appellant were absconding from the house. The postmortem was conducted and the doctor came to the conclusion that the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.105 of 2001 dt.06-11-2012 3 / 4 3 victim girl had been killed because of the pressure applied on her neck. Her thyroid bone was fractured, resulting in asphyxia, which caused her death. 4. During the trial, the prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses. PW 1 Awadh Kishore Thakur and PW 2 Ram Ekbal Thakur have been declared hostile, whereas PW 3 Ram Narain Mishra, PW 4 Umesh Kumar Thakur and PW 7 Bishwanath Rai are formal witnesses in this case. Dr. Manoranjan Prasad Shrivastava has been examined as PW 5. He has supported the injury report and the postmortem report, which shows fracture of the thyroid bone. 5. The informant Baidyanath Singh has been examined as PW 6. He has supported the prosecution case as made out in the First Information Report. During cross-examination, it would appear that this witness has not been able to remember specifically when the demands were made. He has also not been able to disclose as to how he got information regarding the death of his daughter. He admits that his Samadhi used to live at Daltanganj where he was working. He also does not remember as to when he had last met his Samadhi and other In-laws of the victim girl. He denies the suggestion that his daughter was mentally unbalanced and she died because of her mental condition. 6. On examination of the records, it would appear that Ranjeet Thakur has remained in custody for about 5 years Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.105 of 2001 dt.06-11-2012 4 / 4 4 and six months. This Court finds that he has already undergone more than half of the sentence. In the circumstances, there being only sole evidence of the father of the victim girl, which is not supported by any other person, who has come forward to substantiate the case of torture and demand of dowry, this Court finds that the sentence of the appellant should be reduced to the minimum sentence of seven years. 7. Having reached the conclusion that seven years of imprisonment is sufficient punishment in the facts of this case, this Court finds that the appellant would hardly have to remain in custody for one year, if he is asked to serve the minimum sentence. It would be just and proper that the appellant should pay a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to the informant of this case instead of going back to jail within a period of four months from the date of valid service of notice issued by the Trial Court, failing which the appellant is directed to serve the rest of the sentence. The appellant would be discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds only after payment of compensation amount. 8. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with the a

Applicable IPC Section: 498

Statute Text:
Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code. Enticing or taking away or detaining with a criminal intent a married woman. Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of any other man, from that man, or from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man, with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals or detains with that intent any such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.