Statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence but only corroborative in nature
In Sahdeo Gupta and Naresh Kumar Gupta v. State of Bihar and Kanhaiya Lal (2024), Patna High Court's Justice Bibek Chaudhuri quashed and set aside the judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed in Trial No. 82 of 2008, arising out of Nawada P. S. Case No. 231 of 1994, corresponding to G. R. Case No. 1543 of 1994, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif and affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Courts 1st, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2008.
The criminal revision petition was directed against an order, dated May 30, 2018, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2008, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Courts, 1st, Nalanda at Biharsharif, whereby the Court of Appeal upheld the order, dated March 12, 2008, passed in Trial No. 82 of 2008, arising out of Nawada P. S. Case No. 231 of 1994, corresponding to G. R. Case No. 1543 of 1994, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif, convicting and sentencing the petitioners to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment of six months with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Both the sentences were directed to be run concurrently.
Kanhaiya Lal had filed complaint case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada against the Petitioners and their family members, alleging that on March 1, 1993, the daughter of the Informant, namely, Jyoti Gupta was married with Naresh Gupta. After marriage, she went to her matrimonial home and she was subjected to physical and mental torture for one Maruti Car. The wife of Naresh Gupta expressed her inability to provide a Maruti Car to the petitioners. She was brutally assaulted by them. The Informant made all other allegations, implicating the Petitioners of dowry related harassment and cruelty towards his daughter.
The counsel for the petitioners submitted that both the Trial Court and the first Appellate Court did not visualize the lack of specificity in the allegation against the petitioners. He pointed out that the de facto complainant claimed that his daughter was brutally tortured but she was never medically treated for such torture allegedly perpetrated upon her by the petitioners.
The Court agreed with the counsel of the petitioners that both the Courts below relied on the statement of the wife Naresh Gupta recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. as substantive piece of evidence. But they failed to consider that a statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence but only corroborative in nature, when it corroborates the statement made by the de facto complainant in the petition of complaint, the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. can be relied on as a corroborative piece of evidence. It found that the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is exaggerated.
Notably, the Court underlined that "neither the Trial Court nor the Court of Appeal consider that all the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution were either the family members or co-villagers of the Informant. They are interested witnesses and their evidences should not be considered as a gospel truth without proper scrutiny."
The High Court observed that "the case under 498 A of the Indian Penal Code is the outcome of personal grudge and differences between both the parties.
The Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) wherein it was observed that“4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-AIPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-AIPC is a cognizable and non- bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In quite a number of cases, bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.”
It cited the judgement of the Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010). It observed by the Apex Court that: “32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-AIPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern.”
Justice Chaudhury concluded that it is revealed that omnibus allegation was made against the petitioners. The complainant alleged that all the accused persons harassed her and brutally tortured her on demand of a Maruti Car. However, no specific distinct allegation have been made against either of the Petitioners herein, i.e., none of the petitioners have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of general allegations made against them. This simply led to a suggestion wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance to the offence. His order reads: "In view of such circumstances, this Court is not in a position to concur with the concurrent finding of both the Courts below. Accordingly, the instant revision is allowed on contest."
No comments:
Post a Comment