2026:JHHC:15171 p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1332 of 2008 [Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 21.10.2008, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 9, Giridih, in Sessions Trial No. 245 of 2004] Jitendra Sao, son of Sudama Sao, resident of Village – Gumgi, P.O. – Gumgi, P.S. – Tisri, District - Giridih. … … Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Loknath Sahu, S/o Late Indramani Sao, resident of Village – Kharagdiha, P.O. & P.S. – Jamua, District – Giridih. … … Respondent ….. For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Naveen Kr. Ganjhu, A.P.P. ….. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT C.A.V. on 23.04.2026 Pronounced on 15.05.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Present criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.10.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 9, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 245 of 2004, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Sections 498A, 323/34 of the I.P.C. and also under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2½ years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 498-A/34 of the I.P.C., R.I. for 06 months under Section 323/34 of the I.P.C. and R.I. 2026:JHHC:15171 p. 2 for one year with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act with default stipulation and acquitted him from the charge under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibitin Act as well as Sections 376, 120B and 34 of the I.P.C. and rest of the accused persons namely, Sudama Sao and Krishna Sao were acquitted extending benefit of doubt. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the daughter of the informant was married to this petitioner according to Hindu rites. It has been alleged that the informant has given several gifts to his daughter and son-in-law. It has further been alleged that after two months of marriage, the husband (appellant) and in-laws of daughter of the informant started demanding motorcycle, T.V. suit etc. and on non-fulfillment of the same, the informant’s daughter was tortured. The husband of the informant’s daughter (appellant) was residing in Kolkata and he used to come to his village time to time and he also used to assault her. It has further been alleged that appellant always used to send his wife to his Sasural and lastly on 07.07.2003, at about 6:00 A.M., in the morning, appellant left her wife to Chowk and fled away. The daughter of the informant informed the 2026:JHHC:15171 p. 3 informant that on 06.07.2003, in the night, the appellant had mixed poison with ‘Sattu’ and was pressurizing her to eat the same. It has further been alleged that the brother-in-law of the daughter of the informant snatched the ear ring from her daughter. On the basis of written report of informant, Tisri P.S. Case No. 32 of 2003 was registered for the offence under Sections 498A, 323, 379, 34 of the I.P.C. 4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons under Sections 498A, 323, 379, 376/34 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The case was committed to the court of Sessions and after conclusion of trial, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed, which has been assailed in this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that during trial and post-conviction, the appellant was in custody for more than six months. It is admitted case of prosecution that both appellant and victim developed love affairs and thereafter, they were under live-in relationship for more than 02 years. Thereafter, marriage was solemnized. The FIR was lodged for the offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 379, 34 of the I.P.C. and later on Section 376 of I.P.C. was added on 2026:JHHC:15171 p. 4 the basis of requisition submitted by the I.O. Accordingly, Charge-sheet was also submitted for the offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 376/34 of I.P.C. It is submitted that the occurrence is of the year 2003. The informant / opposite party no. 2 did not appear to contest this appeal. Admittedly, both parties have settled in their life by solemnizing their marriage and this case was instituted only after decision of Panchayat to compensate the victim by giving compensation to the tune of Rs. 71,000/-, which was declined by the appellant and just after decision of Panchayat, the victim girl was married with another person. 6. It is further submitted that the present case was instituted to give pressure upon the appellant and his family so that some money may be extracted. However, the above facts could not be considered by the learned trial court either at the time of conviction or on the point of awarding sentence. Hence, if the conviction is upheld by the Hon’ble Court, it would be an appropriate to reduce the sentence for the period already undergone by the appellant in the fact and circumstance, as stated above. 7. On the other hand, learned APP appearing for the State has controverted the aforesaid contentions 2026:JHHC:15171 p. 5 raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that there is direct and specific allegation of torture both mental and physical against the appellant. Hence, there is no merit in this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed. 8. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgment and order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 9. It appears that in course of trial, 09 witnesses have been examined this case. 10. P.W.-1 Anil Sao. He is brother of victim. He has stated that Gunja Devi is his sister and she was married with one Jitendra Prasad Sao in the year 2001. On the eve of marriage, his father had given ear ring, gold chain and other utensils. Jitendra Prasad Sao had demanded motorcycle, colour T.V., palang at the time of marriage. When his father did not fulfill the aforesaid demands, the members of the in-laws family started torturing her sister. This witness has further stated that when his sister came to his house, she disclosed the fact that the member of in-laws family are demanding dowry. 11. P.W.-2 Loknath Sao. He is father of the victim. He has stated that Gunja Devi is his daughter. She was married with one Jitendra Sao in the year 2001 and 2026:JHHC:15171 p. 6 he gave dowry to his daughter in the form of utensils, jevar, ornaments and other articles. Sudama Sao also demanded motorcycle, Palang, T.V. and cloths, but he could not provide the same to him. After marriage, Gunja Devi went to her Sasural. This witness has further stated that Jitendra always used to come to his house but he did not take meal and he always used to say that until or unless the demand is not fulfilled, he could not take her daughter to his house. His daughter came to his house but accused persons did not want to take her to their house. A Panchayati was convened and thereafter his daughter went to her Sasural, but she was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons. 12. P.W.-3 Prakash Sao has stated that Gunja was married to one Jitendra Sao and the accused persons always used to assault Gunja Devi for demand of dowry. 13. P.W.-4 Sambhu Sao has stated the as that of P.W.-3. Nothing new has been stated by P.W.-4 in his evidence. 14. P.W.-5 : Malti Devi has stated in her evidence that Gunja was married to one Jitendra Sao and on the eve of marriage, Jitendra demanded motorcycle, T.V. and furniture as dowry and when demand was not 2026:JHHC:15171 p. 7 fulfilled by the parents of Gunja, Jitendra started assaulting Gunja. Gunja came to her parent’s house and disclosed all these things. 15. P.W.-6 : Paro Devi is the mother of the victim. She has stated that Gunja was married to one Jitendra Sao about five years ago. Jitendra always used to demand dowry in form of motorcycle, T.V., Chain etc. Gunja had gone to her Sasural after marriage, but due to non-fulfillment of dowry, the accused persons namely, Jitendra, Sudama and wife of Sudama, Rabi Shankar always used to assault Gunja. Gunja disclosed this fact when she came to her house. Dilip also committed rape upon Gunja. 16. P.W.-7 : Bijay Sao has stated the same thing as stated by P.W.-6, but this witness has further stated that he could not know anything about the rape. 17. P.W.-8 : Victim. She has stated that she was married to one Jitendra on 05.05.2001. Her husband demanded motorcycle, colour T.V. and other things. After marriage, she went to her Sasural and the accused persons Sudama, Jitendra, Rabi Shankar, Dilip, Krishna Sao used to assault her on non- fulfillment of dowry. She came to her parent’s house and disclosed all these things to her parents and the members of her family. 2026:JHHC:15171 p. 8 18. P.W.-9 : S.D. Prasad. He is the I.O. of this case. He has stated that on 08.07.2003, he was posted at Tisri P.S. This witness has proved the formal F.I.R. as per pen of J.K. Prasad, on which Jitendra Dubey has put his signature and marked as Exhibit-2. This witness has further stated that he took the charge of investigation and he has further recorded the statement of the informant. He has visited the place of occurrence. The place of occurrence is the house of Sudama Sao at Village Gumgi. He has recorded the statement of Anil Sao, Gunja Devi, Paro Devi, Malti Devi, Prakash Sao and others. After recording the statement, he added offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. thereafter he has submitted the charge sheet. 19. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. 20. In view of aforesaid discussion of the prosecution evidence, it is crystal clear that the prosecution has able to prove the charge of torture and demand of dowry. There is no reason to disbelieve testimony of victim and no material has been brought on record to cast any doubt on the prosecution story or to prove anything else showing false implication of the appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment appears to be well-considered and in accordance with law. 2026:JHHC:15171 p. 9 There is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction of the appellant for the offence charged against him. 21. So far quantum of sentence is concerned, admittedly the appellant has undergone more than 06 months imprisonment. Now, from the date of commission of offence, two decades has been passed and the appellant has not been involved in any other criminal activities. It was a domestic dispute and there was lack of adjustment between husband and wife. The victim has already married with another person. The marriage of the appellant with the victim has been dead for all practical purposes. Now, it will not be just and proper to send him to custody for suffering rest of the imprisonment after such a long period. In my considered view, imprisonment already undergone by the appellant would meet the ends of justice in this case and is sufficient punishment in the facts and circumstances of this case. 22. In view of aforesaid discussions and reasons, the impugned judgment of conviction of the appellant is upheld, but the sentence passed by the learned trial court is reduced to imprisonment already undergone by the appellant during trial of the case. 2026:JHHC:15171 p. 10 23. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above. 24. Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of. 25. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, the 15th May, 2026. Sunil /N.A.F.R. Uploaded on 21/05/2026