[2025:JHHC:37236] 1 Cr Appeal (SJ) No. 1333 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1333 of 2018 (Against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.08.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum- Fast Track Court, Offence against Woman, Koderma in S.T. no. 49 of 2010) 1. Md. Jamil Akhtar @ Jamil Akhtar, aged about 47 years, son of Late Md. Farid, permanently residing at No. 329, M-Kulpania, Pani Tanki, Area, P.O. Sunday Bazar, P.S. Gandhi Nagar, Distt. Bokaro, (Jharkhand and presently residing at village Mahuda, P.O. and P.S. Mahuda, Distt. Dhanbad (Jharkhand). 2. Md. Shamim Akhtar @ Shamim Akhtar, aged about 42 years, son of Late Md. Farid, permanently residing at Qr. No. 329, M.Kulpania, Pani Tanki, Area, P.O. Sundary Bazar, P.S. Gandhi Nagar, Distt. Bokaro, (Jharkhand), 3. Sagar Alam, aged about 45 years, son of Late Md. Akhtar, permanently residing at Qr. No. 329, Μ. Kulpania, Pani Tanki Area, P.O. Sunday Bazar, P.S. Gandhi Nagar, Distt. Bokaro, (Jharkhand), presently residing at Bhuli Nagar, E. Bhuli, P.O. and P.S. Bhuli, Distt. Dhanbad, (Jharkhand). 4. Abated 5. Afroji Khatoon, aged about 75 years, wife of Late Md. Farid, permanent resident of Qr. No. 329, M-Kulpania, Pani Tanki Area, P.O. Sunday Bazar, P.S. Gandhi Nagar, District Bokaro, (Jharkhand) …... Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Aasma Aasmin, W/o Md. Jamil Akhtar, Resident of village- Qtr. No. 324, M. Kulpania, near Pani Tanki Area, P.O. Sunday Bazar, P.S. Gandhi Nagar, Distt. -Bokaro, Jharkhand ( at present address- father name Islamul Haque, resident of village- Jalvabad, P.S.- Koderma, Dist.- Koderma. ….. Respondents For the Appellants : Mr. A.K.Kashyap, Sr. Advocate Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Naveen Kr. Gaunjhu , Addl.PP [2025:JHHC:37236] 2 Cr Appeal (SJ) No. 1333 of 2018 P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.08.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum- Fast Track Court, Offences against Women, Koderma in S.T. no. 49 of 2010 whereby and whereunder, learned trial court has held the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and sentenced the appellant nos. 1 and 2 to Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 20,000/- each, in default Simple Imprisonment of three months and sentenced the appellant nos. 3 and 5, to undergo R.I. for one and half years and fine of Rs. 15,000/-, in default Simple Imprisonment for two months each. Learned trial court also held all the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one and half years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default, Simple Imprisonment for one month. Learned trial court further held the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under Section 341/ 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to R.I. for 15 days each. In respect of the offence punishable under Sections 323/ 34 of the IPC, for which, the appellants were held guilty, they were sentenced to undergo to R.I. for three months each and for the offence punishable under Section 504 / 34 of IPC, the appellants were directed to undergo R.I. for six months each. 3. The brief fact of this case is that the complainant –informant married the appellant no. 1 as per the Muslim Rites and Customs and at the time of marriage, several valuable presents including cash jewelry etc. were given and out of the wedlock, the informant and the appellant no. 1 were blessed with three children. All the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, started harassing the informant to bring dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/- and gold bangles; [2025:JHHC:37236] 3 Cr Appeal (SJ) No. 1333 of 2018 which could not be given at the time of marriage. Over and above that, demand was made for washing machine to be brought by the informant from her parents’ place and she was harassed by the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention, to coerce her to meet the said unlawful demands of the appellant-convicts. Being left with no alternative, the parents of the informant gave gold bangles to the appellants on 04.12.2002 but the lust for dowry of the appellants was not satiated and they continued to harass the informant by assaulting her and by causing burn injury on her lips with the help of one hot iron stick and the informant was pushed from the staircase and sustained injury. Further the informant was not given food for 2-3 days at a stretch; only because the parents of the informant were unable to meet the said unlawful dowry demand of the appellant-convicts. The appellant no. 1 got the ownership of the scooter changed to his name, which was given to the informant, as a present at the time of marriage of the informant and because of the nonfulfillment of the dowry demand, after continuously torturing the informant, she along with her children were ultimately driven out from her matrimonial house, after being assaulted on her abdomen and waist; after snatching away her ornaments. On 20.07.2008, the parents of the informant, took the informant and her children from Kurpania to Koderma. The parents of the informant tried to pacify the matter and Panchayati was convened. On 22.02.2009, at about 2:00 PM, the appellant nos. 1, 2 and 3 along with two unknown persons came to the paternal house of the informant and reiterated the said dowry demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- and a washing machine and also threatened the informant and her family members to get them murdered through MCC extremists. The informant filed Complaint Case no. 132 of 2009 in the court of learned CJM, Koderma which upon being referred to police under section 156 (3) of CrPC, Koderkma P.S. case No 121 of 2009 was registered and police took up investigation of the case. After completion of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the appellant-convicts and after considering the materials in [2025:JHHC:37236] 4 Cr Appeal (SJ) No. 1333 of 2018 the record, learned trial court framed charges against the appellants for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 379, 307, 406, 498A, 504 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. From 17.04.2008 to 20.02.2009 at Kurpania in the district of Bokaro where her matrimonial house is situated and also at the matrimonial house of the informant situated at Jalwabad, P.S.- Koderma, the said offences were committed. Learned trial court framed the charges for the said offences. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges and faced the trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution altogether examined nine witnesses besides proving the documents which have been marked as Ext. 1 to 11. In their defence, the appellant-convicts examined only one witness as DW1. The accused persons in their defence also proved five documents, which have been marked as Ext. A to E. 5. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.1- Md. Idrish, has stated about the marriage of the appellant no. 1 with the informant. He has also stated about the dowry demand of Washing Machine, Rs. 1,00,000/- and other articles by the appellants. He has further stated about the harassment meted out to the informant to fulfil the unlawful demand, by coercing her and assaulting her and by pressing a hot iron rod on the lips and legs of the victim causing scar marks. Though PW1 was cross examined at length but nothing was elicited in his cross examination to demolish his testimony made in his examination in chief. 6. P.W.2- Md. Pappu has also stated about the marriage between the appellant no. 1 and the informant. He has stated about the dowry demand of Rs. 1,00,000/-, gold bangles, a washing machine. The demand of gold bangles was met by the father of the informant. He has further stated about the torture being perpetrated upon the informant by way of harassment to coerce her to meet the unlawful demand of dowry of the appellants. The PW2 has further stated about the informant being pushed from the staircase. He has also stated that on 22.02.2009, in a Bolero vehicle, the appellants came to the paternal house of the informant and they abused and again [2025:JHHC:37236] 5 Cr Appeal (SJ) No. 1333 of 2018 demanded the dowry and threatened her that they will get the informant and her paternal family members killed. He has also stated about the informant being driven out from her matrimonial house. In his cross examination, nothing was elicited to discredit his examination in chief and only a bald suggestion was given to him that the occurrence never took place, to which he denied. 7. PW3- Asmina Khatoon, is the mother of the informant. She has also stated about the marriage of the informant with the appellant no. 1 and the unlawful demand of dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be brought by the informant from her father. She was harassed by being assaulted and all the accused persons meted harassment and caused hurt to the informant. They were also demanding a washing machine and because of non-fulfilment of the unlawful demand, the informant was harassed by being assaulted. The appellant-convicts could have murdered the informant by pouring kerosene oil over her and setting her on fire but the informant was rescued by neighbours of her in-laws house. In her cross examination, she has stated that the informant has told her about the informant being tortured with hot iron rod but she does not remember the date. In his cross- examination also, no material could be elicited to discard or discredit her testimony. 8. PW4- Islamul Haque, is the father of the victim and he has also stated about the presents given at the time of marriage. He also stated about the demand of dowry of gold bangles which he gave in the year 2002 but there was further demand of washing machine Rs. 1,00,000/- and the informant was harassed by being assaulted and attempt was made to kill her by burning and ultimately the informant was driven out from here matrimonial house, after being forced to remain without food for several days. He has also stated about the occurrence which took place at Jalwabad, Koderma on 05.02.2009, when PW4 with informant went to her in-law’s house with her children but the informant was not allowed to get inside the house because of the non-fulfilment of the dowry demand. He has further stated about the occurrence of 22.02.2009, when the appellant [2025:JHHC:37236] 6 Cr Appeal (SJ) No. 1333 of 2018 nos. 1, 2 and 3, came in a Bolero vehicle, to the house of PW4 and threatened but when the villagers assembled, the accused persons went away. In his cross examination he has stated that when the accused persons came in a Bolero vehicle, they stayed for 20 minutes and on 05.02.2009, the family members of matrimonial House of the informant did not open the door from 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM. In his cross examination also, nothing was elicited to discard his testimony. 9. PW5- Imtiyaz Ahmad has stated about the marriage between the appellant no. 1 and the informant, the presents that were given, the demand of dowry, the harassment of the informant for non- fulfilment of the demand of dowry by her, she being coerced to meet the unlawful demand of the appellants and the appellant- convicts assaulted the informant and hurt was caused to her, by such assault. In his cross examination, he has also stated that he does not remember the time of the demand of dowry and nothing was elicited in his cross examination to discredit his testimony. 10. PW 6- Ashma Ashmin being the informant has stated about her marriage with the appellant no. 1. She has also stated about the demand of dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/-, gold bangles, washing machine and she has stated about being treated with cruelty, by being harassed, with an intention to coerce her to meet the unlawful demand of the appellant-convicts. She has also stated about disclosing every occurrence to her parents. PW6 further stated that ultimately, she was driven out from her matrimonial house after being assaulted by the appellant-convicts. She was assaulted several times and once, a hot iron rod was pressed on her cheeks and legs. PW6 was used to be tied and thereafter, she was assaulted and she was thrown from the staircase also. She has also stated about the occurrence of 05.12.2019 when the appellant-convicts did not open their house to prevent the informant and her children born out of wedlock, to enter inside the matrimonial house of the informant; for residing there. She next stated about the occurrence of 22.02.2009 when the appellant nos. 1, 2 and 3 came in a Bolero vehicle with two other persons, intentionally insulted the informant and her [2025:JHHC:37236] 7 Cr Appeal (SJ) No. 1333 of 2018 family members to provoke them to commit breach of peace and commit other offences. In her cross examination, she has stated that when her father gave the bangles, she was in her matrimonial house and she was under the treatment of a doctor in respect of the injury caused to her due to pressing of hot iron rod. Nothing was elicited in her cross examination to discard or disbelieve her testimony. 11. PW 7- Md. Sahlal Uddin, has also supported the case of the prosecution. He has also stated about the marriage between the informant and the appellant no. 1. He has also stated about the panchayati and that the appellant-convicts did not agree for the settlement. He has also stated about Punchanama being prepared. He has proved the document which were marked as Ext. 3 and 3/1. In his cross-examination, he has stated about the informant sustaining injury but he did not remember, when the said injury was sustained by the informant . 12. PW8 – Mansoor Alam also corroborated the case of the prosecution by telling about the torture perpetrated. The Panchayati being held. The informant and her children being ill-treated and thrown out of her matrimonial house. 13. PW9- Md. Taiyab, is the Investigating Officer of the case. He described about the place of occurrence, stated about the investigation conducted by him. But nothing has been elicited in his cross examination to discard his testimony. 14. From the side of the defence, the sole witness Ramesh Kumar has stated that he was posted as Assistant General Manager, CCL and produced attendance register of the employees of the CCL and he has proved that the appellant no. 3 was a employee and he further deposed that 22.09.2009 was a Sunday. 15. Learned trial court after considering the evidence and the materials in the record, though acquitted the appellants of other charges framed against them as the same could not be established by the prosecution but held that the appellant-convicts are guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 341, 504 and 323 and 34 of [2025:JHHC:37236] 8 Cr Appeal (SJ) No. 1333 of 2018 IPC and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced them as already indicated above. 16. It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the appellants that impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed without application of judicial mind. It is next submitted that the investigation has been made in a perfunctory manner and the prosecution witnesses are highly interested witnesses. It is next submitted that the court below has failed to consider that appellant Md. Shamim Akhtar was not present at the place of occurrence; as he was present in his office add Khasmahal Project, CCL Bokaro. It is next submitted that there is no independent witness, hence it is submitted that the impugned judgment being not sustainable in law be set aside. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and Others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 and submits that in that case, it has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that when there is general allegations against the family members of the husband in a case of matrimonial dispute, the courts should be cautious to prevent misuse of the criminal prosecution. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants next relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Preeti Gupta and Another vs. State of Jharkhand and Another reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 and submits that in the facts of that case, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that it is high time, when the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is next submitted that the appellant no. 3 has been roped in unnecessarily, only because he is a relative of the husband of the informant, hence, learned Additional Sessions Judge, has erroneously convicted and sentenced the appellant-convicts and the impugned judgment being not sustainable in law, be set aside and the appellant-convicts be acquitted of the charges. [2025:JHHC:37236] 9 Cr Appeal (SJ) No. 1333 of 2018 19. Learned Addl. PP on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer made in this appeal and submits that the testimony of none of the witnesses, examined by the prosecution, has been demolished or discredited in any manner, even after their lengthy cross- examination and all of them have stated about the ingredients of the offences in respect of which, the appellant-convicts have been held guilty. It is next submitted that there is overwhelming evidence in the record establishing each of the charges against the appellant- convicts, that has come through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the documents which have been marked as Exhibit and learned Additional Sessions Judge, has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants. It is lastly submitted that this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 20. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the evidence in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that in the case Wajir Chand and Another vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1989 SC 378, in facts of that case, where there was substantial evidence to indicate that large amount was demanded by the husband from the mother and brother of the deceased and large number of dowry articles were taken by back by the family of the deceased from her matrimonial house, the corollary was that such articles were given in dowry. In the case of Arvind Singh vs. State of Bihar reported in (2001) 6 SCC 407, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that to establish ‘cruelty’, the prosecution has to firstly establish the wilful conduct of the offender, secondly, the nature of such conduct likely to cause grave injury or danger. 21. The essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 498A so far they are applicable to the facts of this case are as follows:- (i) a woman was married (ii) she was subjected to cruelty (iii) such cruelty consisted in inter alia harm to the concerned woman with a view to coerce her to meet the unlawful demand of property or valuable security or on account of failure of such woman, or any of her relations to meet the unlawful demand. [2025:JHHC:37236] 10 Cr Appeal (SJ) No. 1333 of 2018 (iv) the woman was subject to such cruelty by her husband or any relation of her husband. 22. Now coming to the facts of the case, witnesses examined by the prosecution have categorically stated about the demand of dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/-, gold bangles, washing machine and stated about the informant being treated with cruelty as she was harassed by being assaulted, was not provided adequate food, was pressed with hot iron rod on her lips and legs, driven out from her matrimonial house with the children on how of the wedlock with the Appellant no.1, in order to coerce her to meet the unlawful demand of Rs. 1,00,000/-, gold bangles and a washing machine. This, in the considered opinion of this Court is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and this offence has been committed by each of the appellants, therefore, this Court do not find any illegality so far as the conviction and sentence of the appellants in respect of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC is concerned. 23. So far as the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC are as under:- (i) the accused voluntarily caused bodily pain or infirmity to the victim, (ii) the accused did so with the intention of causing hurt or with knowledge that he would cause hurt to the victim. 24. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific allegation against the appellants of being in furtherance of their common intentions in order to coerce the informant to meet the unlawful demand, caused hurt to her by assaulting on several occasions and on one occasion, putting a hot iron on her lips and legs and also brutally assaulting her by pushing her from the staircase and assaulting her with kicks and fists blows on her abdomen and waist, the scar of such injury continued with her even till the time, when she was deposing as a witness in the case. Under such circumstances, this Court do not find any illegality so far as the [2025:JHHC:37236] 11 Cr Appeal (SJ) No. 1333 of 2018 conviction and sentence of the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC is concerned. 25. So far as the offence punishable under Section 504/34 of IPC is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are as under :- (i) The accused intentionally insulted someone and (ii) he thereby intended him to give provocation and (iii) he knew that it was likely that such provocation would cause the person to commit breach of peace or to commit any other offence. 26. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific allegation of the occurrence which took place on 22.02.2009 on which day, the appellants in furtherance of their common intention with one another, came to the house of the informant, intentionally insulted her by abusing the informant and other family member, provoking them to cause breach of peace or any other offence, so this, in the considered opinion is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 504/34 of the IPC. Therefore, this Court do not find any illegality, so far as the conviction of the appellants under Section 504 / 34 of the IPC is concerned or the sentence thereof. 27. So far as the offence punishable under Section 341/34 of the IPC is concerned, in order to constitute the said offence, the essential ingredients are that : (i) the accused obstructed a person (ii) he did it voluntarily and (iii) it prevented such person from proceeding in certain directions in which, he has the right to proceed. 28. Now coming to the facts of the case, as already discussed in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgement, there is evidence against the appellants of being in furtherance of their common intention with the co-accused persons, attempted to kill the informant by catching hold of her and pouring kerosene oil over her but she was rescued by the neighbours upon her raising hue and cry. This, in the [2025:JHHC:37236] 12 Cr Appeal (SJ) No. 1333 of 2018 considered opinion of this Court is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC but so far as the sentence is concerned, Section 341 of IPC envisages punishment with Simple Imprisonment only for a term, which may extend to one month but learned Additional Sessions Judge, has ordered for R.I. for 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 341/ 34 of the IPC. In view of the absence of prescription for R.I. for the offence punishable under Section 341 of the IPC, the sentence is modified from the R.I. for 15 days to S.I. for 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 341/ 34 of the IPC. 29. So far as the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, there is direct and specific allegation against the appellants of they being in furtherance of their common intention and individually also, were demanding dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/-, gold bangles, a washing machine and out of demand of the said three items, the father of the informant could meet only the demand of the gold bangle and the remaining demand, the appellants continued to make. So, in the considered opinion of this Court, such evidence in the record is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against each of the appellant-convicts. Under such circumstances, this Court also do not find any illegality in the conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act. 30. In view of the discussions made above, this Court do not find any illegality in the judgment and conviction of the appellants except to the nature of the sentence in respect of the offence punishable under Section 341/34 of the IPC, as already indicated above. 31. Accordingly, this appeal being without any merit is dismissed with modification of the sentence of the offence punishable under Section 341/34 of the IPC, from the R.I. for 15 days to S.I. for 15 days, as already indicated above. [2025:JHHC:37236] 13 Cr Appeal (SJ) No. 1333 of 2018 32. It appears that the appellants are on appeal bail. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the appellants are directed to surrender before learned trial court forthwith to undergo the sentence. 33. Let a copy this Judgment along the trial Court Records be sent to the Court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 21st November, 2025. AFR/Smita Uploaded on 18.12.2025