2026:JHHC:18056 1 Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 68 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal (S.J.) No. 68 of 2020 ----- (Against the judgment of acquittal dated 05.09.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 04 of 2020 arising out of Sadar Mahila P.S. Case No. 12 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 476 of 2015 having T.R. No. 583 of 2020, by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa) Jyotsna Pramanik @ Jyotsana Pramanik, aged about 28 years, D/o – Sunil Pramanik, Resident of Village- Itor, P.O. & P.S.- Chakradharpur, Dist. -West Singhbhum (Jharkhand). --- --- Appellant Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Sandeep Pramanik, aged about 45 years, S/o Bhutnath Pramanik, 3.Bhutnath Pramanik, aged about 75 years, S/o Late Ghasia Pramanik, 4.Rathu Pramanik, aged about 70 years, W/o Bhutnath Pramanik, 5.Munmun Pramanik, aged about 37 years, D/o Bhutnath Pramanik, Respondents / Opposite Parties No.-2 to 5 are resident of Lower Burdhman Compound, near Gulmohar Park, P.O. & P.S.- Lalpur, Dist.-Ranchi (Jharkhand) --- --- Respondents ….... For the Appellant : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, A.P.P. For the Resp. No. 2 to 5 : Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, Advocate PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR J U D G M E N T By Court 1. Heard learned counsel the appellant, learned A.P.P. representing the State and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 to 5. 2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 05.09.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 04 of 2020 by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa whereby the learned Appellate Court has acquitted the Respondent no. 2 to 5 2026:JHHC:18056 2 Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 68 of 2020 from the charge levelled against them and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.01.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in G.R. No. 476 of 2015 arising out of Sadar Mahila P.S. Case No. 12 of 2015 corresponding to T.R. No. 583 of 2020 whereby and where under the private respondents were convicted for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three years with a fine of Rs. 2500/- each and in default of payment of fine, they will have to undergo S.I. for 3 months each under Section 498A of the IPC. Further they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year with a fine of Rs. 2500/- each and in default of payment of fine, they shall have to undergo further S.I. for 1 ½ months each under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging a typed report dated 12.08.2015 by the Informant (victim)- Jyotsna Pramanik before the Officer In-charge of Mahila Police Station, Chaibasa being Sadar (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 12 of 2015. The brief fact of the case is that the marriage between the informant and accused Sandeep Parmarnik was solemnized on 21.06.2010 according to Hindu Rites and Custom and after marriage, informant was taken to her matrimonial home where she lived peacefully for about three years. Out of the said wedlock, they were blessed with a child. It is further alleged that in the marriage, father of the informant had given refrigerator, cooler, colour T.V., Sofa set, Bed set, Almirah. utensil one Splendor Plus motorcycle along with gold and silver ornaments worth Rs. 2,00,000/-. It is further alleged that after three years of marriage, informant was being tortured by her in- laws, even she was not being given food also. Thereafter, informant was assaulted by her Nanad, mother-in-law and father-in-law. When 2026:JHHC:18056 3 Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 68 of 2020 informant asked her husband to go to Delhi where her husband was working, he also abused the informant and made demand of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is further alleged that thereafter informant told her father about their demand. Her father went to her matrimonial home and requested them not to torture his daughter and also told them that he is unable to fulfill the demand of Rs.5.00 000/-. On this, on 01.12.2014 the informant was mercilessly assaulted by her in-laws. When she informed the matter to her husband on telephone, her husband also threatened her and told her to fulfill the demand of Rs.5,00,000/- otherwise he would bring second wife. Thereafter, they kicked out the informant from her matrimonial home. On 14.04.2015, her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and Nanad also came to her maika and also assaulted the informant and tried to snatch the child from her but could not do so. Thereafter the present case has been lodged. . 4. On the basis of said application Sadar (Mahila) P.S Case no. 12 of 2015 dated 12.08.2015 u/s 498(A) IPC and u/s 3/4 of the D.P. Act was registered. 5. After investigation the I.O has submitted the chargesheet being charge-sheet no. 05 of 2016 dated 30.10.2016 in the Court under Section 498(A) of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 6. After supplying police paper, formal charge under Section 498(A) of the IPC and 3/4 of the D.P. Act was framed on 12.07.2017, which was explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. After culmination of the trial, the accused persons were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction, the accused preferred the Criminal Appeal No. 04 of 2020 in which the learned appellate court has acquitted the 2026:JHHC:18056 4 Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 68 of 2020 accused – private respondents from all the charges. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the informant has preferred the present acquittal appeal. 9. To substantiate the charge altogether eight prosecution witnesses were examined. Their brief statements are as follows: I. P.W.1 Kartal Singh Pramanik - He is brother of the victim and reiterated the statement made by the informant in her deposition as also in the F.I.R. In his cross examination, he has stated that the accused persons took away the child on 14.04.2014 and at that time no case was lodged. The demand of dowry was being made from his sister and he could not say the date of demand of dowry. His brother-in-law Sandeep Pramanik has lodged a divorce case against his sister. II. PW-2 Sabita Pramanik – She is the mother of the informant. She has also reiterated the statement made by the informant. In her cross examination she has stated that her daughter lived in her matrimonial home for three years and therefore, she started residing at her parental house. She could not say about the day and date of assault committed by in-laws of her daughter. She also could not say the date of demand of dowry and even date and day of marriage of her daughter. III. PW-3 Sunil Pramanik – He is the father of the informant. He has supported the prosecution story and also reiterated the statement made by his daughter. In his cross examination he has admitted that prior to this case, he has not lodged any report alleging demand of dowry. Since 01.12.2024 his daughter was residing separately from her husband. He has further admitted that a case of divorce was pending in the Family Court. He is unable to state the date and day of assault upon his daughter. IV. PW -4 Jyotsna Pramanik- She is the informant of the case. 2026:JHHC:18056 5 Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 68 of 2020 She has deposed that her marriage was solemnized with the accused Sandeep Pramanik on 21.06.2010 according to Hindu Rites and Customs. After marriage, she went to her matrimonial home and resided three years in a cordial manner. At that time, the behaviour of her husband and in-laws family members were well. Thereafter, her Nanad Munmun Pramanik came in her Sasural and started residing with them. She has further deposed that her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and Nanad started demanding cash of Rs.5,00,000/-, then she informed the matter to her father, but her father didn't fulfill the demand of her in-laws. Thereafter, her mother-in-law and Nanad started assaulting and misbehaving with her, then she informed the matter to her husband through phone, who told her that due to non-fulfillment of their demand of Rs.5,00,000/- they have behaved with her like a maid-servant. She has further deposed that her father tried to reconcile the matter with her in-laws family member but in-vain. She has further deposed that out of their wedlock a male child was born after one year of marriage and on 14.04.2015 her mother-in-law. father-in-law, Nanad and her husband came at her parental house for taking of her child and after snatching her child they wanted to go, but on raising her alarm, the mohalla people took her child from them and return to her. She has further deposed that she along with her minor son are residing at her parental house and receiving maintenance of Rs.5,500/-every month from her husband. In her cross-examination she has admitted that she has lodged this case after five years of marriage She has further admitted that her husband is residing at Delhi prior to her marriage, as he was doing job at Delhi. She has further admitted that her mother-in-law and father-in-law are senior citizens and 2026:JHHC:18056 6 Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 68 of 2020 the marriage of her Nanad was solemnized prior to solemnization of her marriage. She has further admitted that she could not remembered the actual day and date of assault. She has further admitted that due to assault, she had sustained injuries and treated in a Hospital, but she has no any document of treatment. She has further admitted that on 01.12.2014, her in-laws have demanded Rs.5,00,000/-, which has also been mentioned in her typed application, but she has neither lodged any complaint before the Court nor informed the same to nearest police station. She has admitted that she knew from the newspaper that her husband has lodged a divorce case in the Family Court at Ranchi on 15.04.2015 i.e. Matrimonial Case No. 142/2015. V. P.W.5 Hari Jiwan Pradhan- He has also reiterated the story narrated in the F.I.R. He has deposed that he attended the marriage of the informant and the accused, which was solemnized about 8 years ago. In his cross examination he has stated that neither demand of dowry was made nor any torture was done in his presence. He has no knowledge that husband of the informant has lodged a divorce case. VI. P.W.7 Parmeshwar Ram- He has also participated in the marriage of the informant. He has also reiterated the statement made in the F.I.R. In his cross examination he has stated that no demand of dowry or assault was made in his presence. VII. P.W.8 Jagdish Pradhan- He has deposed that he saw the informant along with her child when she returned weepingly to her parental house and presently she is residing there. In cross examination he has stated that he has not seen any assault or demand of dowry. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has made the following 2026:JHHC:18056 7 Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 68 of 2020 submission in support of his contention: A. There is clear cut allegation of demand of dowry and harassment. B. There is allegation of not giving food to the informant in her matrimonial home. C. The learned appellate court did not take into account the above ground while acquitting the accused persons of all the charges. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondents- accused persons has drawn the attention of this Court to the following: A. Contradictory statement has been made by the victim as in the F.I.R, she has stated that the money has been demanded for going to Delhi as the matrimonial home has to be established whereas in her deposition, she has stated that there was demand of dowry on arrival of her ‘nanad’ and there was dispute with ‘nanad’. B. Further, it has been submitted that there are general and omnibus allegation as no date or time, either of assault or the demand of dowry has been mentioned anywhere. C. Further, injury has been claimed by the informant but the Investigating Officer has not found any mark of injury. Thus, the entire story is exaggeration and normal wear and tear of the matrimonial home has been aggravated. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that the learned Appellate Court has rightly observed that it is nothing but normal wear and tear of the matrimonial home which has been unnecessarily aggravated. The entire evidence has been properly appreciated and there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned judgment and the same is just and proper 2026:JHHC:18056 8 Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 68 of 2020 13. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the impugned judgement of acquittal. 14. Accordingly, the present acquittal appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated 22nd June 2026 A. Mohanty Jharkhand High Court Uploaded ____/____/2026