2026:JHHC:17571 Cr. Revision No.349 of 2017 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 349 of 2017 …… Dilip Kumar Keshri @ Dilip Pd. Keshri, Son of Lakhan Prasad Keshri, Resident of Village – Jhumri Telaiya, Kalali Road, Gas Station P.O. & P.S.: Jhumri Telaiya District: Koderma. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mamta Devi W/o Dilip Kumar Keshri, D/o Late Mhabir Saw Keshri, R/o Village – Mahrajganj P.O. – Dadpur P.S. – Chouparan, District Hazaribag. … Opp. Parties …… For the Petitioner : Mr. H.K. Shikarwar, Adv. For the State : Mrs. Mahua Palit, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Awnish Shankar, Adv. …… P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA …… ORDER C.A.V. on 13.05.2026 Pronounced on 17.06.2026 1. Instant criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner for setting aside the judgment and order dated 23.01.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribag in Cr. Appeal No. 159 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code to undergo S.I. for one year along with fine of Rs.500/- and S.I. for six months along with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under 2026:JHHC:17571 Cr. Revision No.349 of 2017 Page | 2 Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act passed by learned Trial Court in Complaint Case No.1811 of 2008, T.R. No. 778 of 2015 vide order dated 15.09.2015 was upheld while dismissing the appeal of the present petitioner and allowed the appeal of appellant Nos.2 and 3, who happens to be parents of the petitioner. 2. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the complainant Mamta Devi has instituted the aforesaid compliant case stating inter alia that her marriage was solemnized with present petitioner in accordance with Hindu rites and customs on 30.06.2006. It is alleged that due to wedlock, after one and a half years of marriage, a male child namely Dipanshu Kumar Keshari was begotten. Just after two months of the marriage, her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law started demanding one motorcycle worth Rs.50,000/- as additional dowry, otherwise she will not be provided shelter in the matrimonial home. She was subjected to hard routine work as a labour and abused and assaulted. It is alleged that her husband was working as a labourer, whenever he used to return to home in the evening, she was abused and assaulted by her husband. She was kept hungry 2026:JHHC:17571 Cr. Revision No.349 of 2017 Page | 3 for several days. It is alleged that on 16.11.2008 at about 10:00 p.m., the present petitioner and his relatives dragged the complainant with hairs and tried to push her in the well but any how she could be saved. Thereafter, all the accused persons snatching her cash and jewelries amounting Rs.80,000/- (Eighty Thousand only) kept in the box, driven her out from the matrimonial home. It is alleged that several times Panchayati was convened to resolve the dispute but of no use. The complainant’s parents are very poor persons and unable to meet the demand raised by accused persons. Therefore, she is compelled to reside with her parents. It is also alleged that husband of the complainant has been entangled with another girl and used to talk her on mobile phone. The compliant case was instituted on 26.11.2008 and after conducting the inquiry, summons were issued against three accused persons who appeared and contested the case, facing the trial. 3. I have already heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and the learned A.P.P for State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the 2026:JHHC:17571 Cr. Revision No.349 of 2017 Page | 4 same set of evidence, mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant have been acquitted. So far as allegations against the petitioner is concerned, the learned Trial Court as well learned Appellate Court has failed to take into consideration that no specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner. Admittedly, he is working as a labourer and could not afford even the cost of petrol/diesel of the motorcycle. The complainant herself does not want to live with the petitioner seeing his pathetic situation and meager earning. Hence, impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant is liable to be set aside by allowing this revision. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 assisted with learned A.P.P. for State controverting the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that just within three years span of marriage, she was also blessed with two children. The complainant was subjected to cruelty both physical and mental at the hands of present petitioner and his parents and even maternal uncle for bringing a motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- cash as additional dowry. There are consistent 2026:JHHC:17571 Cr. Revision No.349 of 2017 Page | 5 and concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court proving the guilt of petitioner for the offences charged against him. It is further submitted that a Maintenance Case No.159 of 2009 was also filed by the opposite party No.2 against her husband and vide order dated 13.08.2013 total Rs.6,000/- per month as maintenance allowance has been allowed in favour of complainant/wife to be paid by her husband but till date not a single penny has been given by the petitioner and he is avoiding his presence in the above maintenance case in distress warrant proceeding. Therefore, this revision has no merits and fit to be dismissed. 6. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgments passed by learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court and find that the complainant has consistently proved her case which finds corroboration from other witnesses also. The learned Appellate Court has also concurred with the judgment passed by learned Trial Court. In the present revision, no glaring legal points have been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner to take a different view from the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate 2026:JHHC:17571 Cr. Revision No.349 of 2017 Page | 6 Court. The plea that on the basis of same evidence, other two accused persons have been acquitted, who are none else but mother and father of the present petitioner. Admittedly, the use of motorcycle as demanded in this case only serve the purpose of the petitioner and not of the old parents. Therefore, above ground cannot assist the petitioner in taking a different view. 7. In view of above discussion and reasons, I do not find any merits in this revision which stands dismissed. Petitioner is on bail, his bail bond is hereby cancelled. Petitioner is directed to surrender before learned Trial Court within two months from the date of this order, failing which, learned Trial Court is directed to take all coercive steps against the petitioner to secure his presence for serving the remaining part of sentence awarded to him. 8. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. 9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated:17/06/2026 Sachin / NAFR Uploaded On:19/06/2026