2026:JHHC:16545 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1093 of 2017 -------- Lakshmikant Mahato @ Lakhikant Mahato, son of Late Gurucharan Mahato, resident of Village-Bersai, Sirum Tola-Nodutand Chhatardih, P.O. & P.S.-Nimdih, District-Seraikella-Kharsawan ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Lalita Mahato, wife of Lakshmikant Mahato @ Lakhikant Mahato, daughter of Rajni Kant Mahato, at present resides at Bersai, Sirum Tola, Burudih, P.O. & P.S.-Nimdih, District-Seraikella-Kharsawan … … Opp. Parties ----- P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. R.C.P. Sah, Advocate Mr. Chandra Gupta Ashok Bardhan, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Jayant Kumar Pandey, Advocate -------- C.A.V. on 01.05.2026 Pronounced on 09/06/2026 1. Heard Mr. R.C.P. Sah, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. assisted by Mr. Jayant Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2. 2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.05.2017, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella, in Cr. Appeal No. 33 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the conviction and sentence of the petitioner passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Seraikella in G.R. Case No. 373 of 2009, for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C., awarding maximum sentence of R.I. for three years along with fine of Rs.3,000/- has been modified to the extent of reducing the sentence to the extent of R.I. for one year maintaining the fine amount of Rs.3,000/-. Factual Matrix 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the informant 2026:JHHC:16545 2 Lalita Mahato was married with the present petitioner in the year 2000. It is alleged that the husband and in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry articles presented at the time of marriage by father of the informant and started demanding of Rs.25,000/- in cash as additional dowry, due to non-fulfillment of which the informant was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by all the accused persons. It is alleged that the complainant was not provided for basic needs like food and clothes and also maltreated and during illness, no medical facility was provided to her rather she was compelled to discharge domestic work from very early in the morning to the late hour of night. It is further alleged that the husband of informant was pressurizing her to unnatural sexual intercourse and taking precautions to prevent the pregnancy of the informant by using condom. It is alleged that on 16.11.2008, the informant’s husband became so furious that he poured kerosene oil on her body and attempted to set her on fire, but anyhow she managed to flee away from her in-laws’ house and took shelter at her parental home. Thereafter, the informant came to know that her husband had solemnized a second marriage with one Sanghli Burhi and her husband also tried to withdraw Rs.1.5 lakhs which was received from Land Acquisition Office due to acquisition of some land and fixed in the joint name of complainant and her husband. The complainant went to Nimdih Police Station for lodging the case, but she was advised to file a complaint case before the court. 4. The Complaint Case No.C1-14 of 2009 filed by the present complainant was sent to concerned police station under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. for registration of case and investigation. Accordingly, 2026:JHHC:16545 3 Nimdih P.S. Case No. 16 of 2009 dated 23.05.2009 was registered for the offence under Sections 498A, 494 and 109 of the I.P.C., along with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, against seven accused persons including the present petitioner. 5. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for the aforesaid offences against four accused persons, namely, Lakshmikant Mahato, Mangli Mahato, Dulalchandra Mahato and Sanghli Burhi @ Amla Mahato. The other accused persons were not sent up for trial due to insufficient evidence. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, altogether nine witnesses were examined by prosecution. Apart from oral evidence, following documentary evidence were also adduced, i.e., Exhibit-1, endorsement on complaint petition for registration of case by Officer-in-charge, Nimdih and Exhibit-2, the formal F.I.R. 6. On the other hand, the case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication. 7. The learned Trial Court after evaluating the evidence available on record acquitted all the three accused persons except the present petitioner from the charges leveled against them and present petitioner was held guilty and sentenced as stated above. 8. The convict preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge vide Cr. Appeal No. 33 of 2013, which was also disposed of vide judgment dated 26th May, 2017, by learned Additional Sessions Judge- II, Seraikella, whereby the conviction of the petitioner was upheld 2026:JHHC:16545 4 while reducing the sentence from R.I. of three years to R.I. of one year, as stated above. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner: - 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a victim of an absolutely frustrated marriage. Admittedly, the marriage was solemnized with opposite party No.2 in the year 2000. Admittedly, his wife left matrimonial home in the year 2008, leveling false allegations that the present petitioner sprinkled kerosene oil on her body and attempted to lit fire on her and she went to her parental home. In the span of 8 years since marriage, not a single complaint or any cruel activities at the hands of the petitioner and his family members was ever raised. The wife could not conceive for pretty long period thereafter, she decided to live separately and of her own accord went to her parental home and after stay of one year, she lodged a complaint case. It is further submitted that general and omnibus allegations were made against all the accused persons, but out of four accused persons, three had been acquitted by the learned Trial Court itself on the basis of same evidence. The informant, except her bald testimony, has brought no material on record showing the complicity of the present petitioner in abusing or assaulting her or extending any kind of torture with specific manner and specific incidents. The charge under Section 494 of the I.P.C. was found to be not proved and the accused No.4 who was alleged to be the second wife of the petitioner, was also acquitted along with other accused persons. Most of the independent witnesses have been declared hostile and not supported the prosecution case except the informant, her parents and close relatives. It is further submitted that as 2026:JHHC:16545 5 per allegation in the complaint petition, the attempt to set the complainant on ablaze has not been proved. So far non-supply of proper food and clothes is also not believable in view of fact that she remained at her matrimonial home for about eight years after marriage without any complaint. Therefore, simple demand of Rs.25,000/- as alleged even if may be assumed to be true, that itself cannot be categorized at cruelty as defined under Section 498A of the I.P.C. 10. It is further submitted that father of the informant, P.W.-5 Rajnikant Mahato, himself admitted in his cross-examination that his daughter has lodged this case after eight years of marriage and his daughter has no issue out of her wedlock. He has also admitted that incidents of assault, demand of dowry and treating his daughter with cruelty has not been seen by him. He cannot tell on which date and year any incident of assault or torture of any kind was meted with his daughter and such type of allegations was never disclosed by his daughter to him. He also admits that he has not reported the occurrence of sprinkling kerosene oil on his daughter for causing her murder. He has also failed to disclose any date of Panchayati which he alleged to have conducted in this case. The mother of the informant was not made witness in this case and she was not interrogated during investigation. Therefore, a most material witness has been withheld for reasons best known to prosecution. 11. It is further submitted that the informant Lalita Mahato, was also examined as P.W.-9, wherein she has alleged about demand of Rs.25,000/- by her Mama Sasur Chandramohan Mahato and son of Chandramohan Mahato namely, Dulalchandra Mahato and her mother- 2026:JHHC:16545 6 in-law. There is no allegation of demand of any money by the petitioner. Similarly, there is no allegation that the present petitioner ever subjected her to any type of cruelty. The gist of her evidence shows that she was suspecting that the present petitioner had illicit relation with another widow lady of his village hence, his wife was aggrieved but no such evidence was brought on record regarding second marriage or any illicit relation of the petitioner with any other lady. She also admits that when she was apprehending that her husband had solemnized second marriage then she lodged this case. 12. It is further submitted that in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. recorded by Magistrate, a single compound question has been asked regarding demand of Rs.25,000/- and due to non-fulfillment of which his wife was subjected to mental and physical cruelty from 16.11.2008 to 16.01.2009. It is admitted fact that the informant left her matrimonial home on 16.11.2008 and thereafter, never returned to her matrimonial home rather she lodged this false case. Therefore, the cause of action specifically mentioned in the charge and explained to the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. itself does not constitute any offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. 13. The appellate court has also not considered the glaring materials appearing in the cross-examination of material witnesses which are sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution story. Therefore, the impugned judgments passed by learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court is absolutely perverse beyond the weight of evidence available on record and based upon non-consideration of material facts admitted in the cross-examination of informant and her father. Hence, the impugned 2026:JHHC:16545 7 judgments are liable to be set aside, allowing this revision. Submissions on behalf of the State: - 14. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. assisted by learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 has controverted the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of petitioner and submitted that the informant has consistently proved her case and the specific torturous conduct of the petitioner towards his own wife who was not sexually satisfying her rather entangled with another lady and his family members were also demanding Rs.25,000/- as a dowry and she was not provided proper food and clothes. All such facts have been proved beyond doubt and considered by the learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court which comes under the first limb of Section 498A of the I.P.C. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the concurrent findings of guilt of the petitioner for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and there is no merit in this revision, which is liable to be dismissed. 15. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgments passed by learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both sides. 16. The only point for consideration in this revision is that “as to whether the judgments passed by learned Trial Court and the Appellate Court suffer from serious error of law and vitiated by non-consideration of relevant material evidence as such illegal, incorrect and perverse?” Analysis, discussions and reasons:- 17. In order to adjudicate upon the above point, appraisal of the 2026:JHHC:16545 8 materials available on record is necessary. 18. Admittedly, this case was lodged after nine years of marriage. The victim wife (O.P. No.2) all along was residing at her matrimonial home with visiting terms occasionally at her parental home till eight years. It is evident from the testimony of informant (P.W.-9), Lalita Mahato that the demand of Rs.25,000/- was made by her mother-in- law, maternal uncle-in-law (Mama Sasur) son of Mama Sasur but she has not disclosed any demand made by her husband. The single occurrence of pouring kerosene oil upon her (an attempt to lit on fire) is alleged against the husband due to that reason on the same day she returned to her parental home, i.e., on 16.11.2008. 19. The father of informant, Rajnikant Mahato, has also stated that his daughter remained at her Sasural about eight years and there was no demand of money or any information that his daughter is being tortured or subjected to any cruelty at the hands of her husband or in-laws was ever communicated to him by his daughter. He has further stated that when he came to know that his son-in-law (the present petitioner) is going to solemnize a second marriage with a widow lady which was communicated to him by his daughter then this case was lodged. This fact is also admitted by the informant (wife herself) in her evidence. 20. It is also apparent that the main sufferer of this domestic dispute is the informant, who has not been able to prove any act of cruelty except general and omnibus allegations against her husband which she could never been able to prove to the hilt. No other material is available on record to prove the charge under Section 498A of the I.P.C. The most drastic thing is that till the passing of eight years at her 2026:JHHC:16545 9 matrimonial home, not a single complaint was ever made by the informant either to her parents or any other relatives or at police station. The whole cause of action, as depicted in the charge itself, is in between 16.11.2008 to 16.01.2009. However, no specific incident occurring during that period has been brought on record which may be come within the ambit of cruelty. 21. In view of above discussion and reasons, I find that both the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court has miserably failed to consider the very substantial facts which overrules the commission of any offence by the petitioner and non-consideration of these materials has occasioned in failure of justice. Therefore, in my opinion the impugned judgments are absolutely illegal, incorrect, improper and suffers from perversity, therefore, impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of petitioner passed by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court is hereby set aside and this revision is allowed. 22. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly. 23. Let a copy of this order along with Trial Court record be sent back to the concerned court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court Dated 09/06/2026 Arpit/ N. A. F. R. Uploaded on 10/06/2026