2026:JHHC:19084 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1174 of 2016 ------ 1. Pawan Kumar. 2. Shrawan Kumar. Both sons of Mithilesh Mahto, residents of Village – Oriya, P.O. & P.S. – Lesliganj, District – Palamau. .... …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Savitri Devi, Daughter of Prabhu Mehta and Wife of Shrawan Kumar Mehta, resident of Village – Oriya, P.O. & P.S. – Lesliganj, District - Palamau. …. .... Opp. Parties ------ Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Tiwary, Advocate. Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Dubey, Advocate. Mrs. Priyanka Tiwari, Advocate. ------ JUDGMENT CAV On Dated- 11.06.2026 Pronounced On 30.06.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 29.07.2016 passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the conviction of the petitioners for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj in Complaint 2026:JHHC:19084 2 Case No. 770 of 2009 corresponding to Trial No. 770/2015 has been upheld and the petitioners have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 02 years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. with default stipulation. 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the complainant Savitri Devi was married with petitioner no. 2 Shrawan Kumar in the year 2003 as per Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged that just after three months of marriage, her husband and other accused persons started demanding Rs. 2 Lacs as additional dowry. On showing inability by the father of the complainant, on instruction of her father-in-law, she was subjected to physical and mental torture by her husband, younger brother-in-law and younger sister-in-law. Physical assault was also given by her husband. The father of the complainant convened a Panchayati to pacify the matter, but of no use, rather, the cruelty against the complainant was enhanced and at the time of Panchayati, complainant’s father and family members were also insulted. The complainant was not allowed to live at her matrimonial home, rather compelled to reside at her parental home. On 13.07.2009, the present petitioners Shrawan Kumar and Pawan Kumar attempted to commit murder of the complainant by pressing her throat. 2026:JHHC:19084 3 Her jewelries and ornaments worth Rs. 30,000/- and cloths were kept by the accused persons. 4. After conducting enquiry into the complaint, the accused persons were summoned, who appeared and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In course of trial, altogether five witnesses were examined by the complainant including herself. 6. On the other hand, the defence has also produced two witnesses, D.W.-1 Awadh Bihari Mahto and D.W.-2 Birbal Mahto. 7. The learned trial court, after considering the oral testimony of witnesses adduced by prosecution and defence, arrived at conclusion about guilt of the accused persons for the offence under Section 498A of I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for two years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- 8. The convicts preferred appeal, i.e. Cr. Appeal No. 22 of 2015 before the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, which was also dismissed in respect of the present petitioners, although other convicts namely, Mithilesh Mehta @ Mahto and Satyawanti Devi were extended benefit of reasonable doubts and acquitted from the charges levelled against them. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the impugned judgments has submitted that the learned trial 2026:JHHC:19084 4 court as well as learned appellate court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence available on record. Admittedly, the marriage was solemnized in the year 2003 and the present complaint case was lodged in the year 2009 after lapse of 06 years. The prosecution has not been able to prove through cogent and reliable evidence about any demand of Rs. 2 lakhs raised by the petitioners. Keeping mum for petty long period of 06 years without any complaint clearly indicates that there was no any demand or consequent torture meted with the informant. The learned trial court has committed grave error of law in applying the legal provisions to the facts of this case, which has occasioned miscarriage of justice. The learned trial court as well as appellate court has also failed to consider that inspite of lapse of 06 years from marriage, there was no issue to the informant and she was adamant to take adoption as a son of her nephew which was protested by the petitioner-husband. Therefore, this case was lodged under irresistible impulse and hurt of emotions of the complainant, which cannot be categorized as amounting to cruelty as defined under Section 498A of the I.P.C. It is a purely case of domestic disagreement and failure of adjustment with the domestic problems. On the basis of same evidence other co-accused persons were acquitted by 2026:JHHC:19084 5 the learned appellate court and there is no definite evidence segregating the case against petitioners and imputing overall liability upon them in connection with demand of dowry and cruelty. Not a single instance of any cruel treatment with the complainant has been proved by her. Therefore, both the learned trial court as well as appellate court has committed serious error of law in convicting the petitioners for the offence under Section 498A of I.P.C. No incriminating evidence / circumstances have been got explained by the petitioners in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. which also vitiates the whole trial and findings recorded by the learned trial court. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and this revision is allowed. 10. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has submitted that the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court has very wisely and aptly considered overall evidence available on record in view of the defence evidence. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment calling for any interference in this revision. 11. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgments passed by the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 2026:JHHC:19084 6 12. It appears that out of five witnesses, C.W.-1 Sujeet Mahto, C.W.-2 Brajdeo Narayan Mahto and C.W.-3 Balram Mehta are hearsay witnesses from the complainant / her parents. C.W.-4 Prabhu Mahto, father of the complainant has clearly admitted that in the year 2003 itself, his daughter returned to parental home after three months. Thereafter, demand of Rs. 2 Lacs was raised, which could not be fulfilled, then his daughter was subjected to physical and mental torture by her husband and other accused persons. He clearly admits in his cross-examination that in between 2003 to 2009, he never called any Panchayati nor lodged any written report in the police station for any occurrence taken place with his daughter. His daughter came to her parental home on three occasions after marriage and on all occasions, she was accompanied by her husband and bidai was also taken place by the husband of his daughter. Since 13.07.2009 his daughter was residing in his house. He has also admitted that the informant has no issue and she has also undergone operation for the same. He has denied the suggestion of defence that now his daughter would never conceive. P.W.-5 is the complainant herself. She has also deposed that after three months of marriage, she returned 2026:JHHC:19084 7 to her parental home and again went to her sasural after three months, then Rs. 2 Lacs was demanded as dowry by her husband, father-in-law, younger brother-in-law and sister-in-law. She told that her father could not fulfill the above demand, then accused persons used to press her neck and assault her. A Panchayati was also held at Village-Oriya, wherein members of Panchayat were also misbehaved. Ultimately, on 13.07.2009, she was assaulted and her ornaments presented at the time of marriage were snatched and she was driven out from her matrimonial home. She also states that once she was pregnant, but the same was terminated by her husband by administering some medicine. In her cross-examination, she categorically admits that her marriage was solemnized in the year 2003 and ultimately she was driven away from her matrimonial home on 13.07.2009. She has never undergone any treatment for physical assault. She also admits that for the first time, Panchayati was taken in the year 2009. She has denied the suggestion of defence that when she was not conceiving for a petty long period after marriage, she was insisting to adopt her nephew as son and transfer some land in his name, which was not accepted by her husband and accused persons, then she has lodged this false case. 2026:JHHC:19084 8 13. On the other hand, defence has also examined two witnesses. D.W.-1 Awadh Bihari Mahto has stated that Savitri Devi was living with her husband at her matrimonial home since 2003 and after lapse of 06 years, she could not conceive, inspite of her treatment at the instance of her husband. He has further deposed that Savitri Devi was adamant to taking adoption of her own nephew, who was son of her younger brother, aged about 10 years. Her husband was not ready for this, hence there was dispute and scuffle between husband and wife and due to this dispute, she went to her parental home and not residing with her husband. D.W.-2 Birbal Mahto has stated that complainant was not conceiving, therefore, her medical treatment was conducted at BHU Hospital. He has also filed the relevant medical papers as Exhibit-A, A/1 and A/2. It appears from perusal of Exhibit-A, A/1 and A/2 that during medical examination her right tube was found blocked. Her treatment was conducted at BHU in the year 2007. Uterus was also separated through operation. He has further deposed that at present Savitri Devi residing separately with her husband. 2026:JHHC:19084 9 14. I have given anxious consideration towards overall evidence available on record. 15. It appears that the factum of demand of dowry of Rs. 2 Lacs from the very inception of marriage in the year 2003, which persisted till 2009 has not been substantiated by any cogent and reliable evidence. The complainant herself in her evidence has stated nothing as to how and in which manner she was subjected to cruelty and she remained at her matrimonial home under such state of affairs for long period of 06 years. The father of the complainant has also stated nothing about any Panchayati at any time in between 2003 to 2009. He has also stated in general terms about demand of Rs. 2 Lacs and due to non-fulfillment, his daughter was subjected to cruelty. He also admits that in between 2003 to 2009, no report was lodged, rather his daughter always remained at her matrimonial home. It also transpires from documentary evidence of defence that for a petty long time, when the complainant could not conceive, she has undergone treatment at BHU Hospital and it was opined that her right tube was blocked and she is unable to conceive. In the above state of affairs, the complainant was demanding adoption of a child from her husband and in- laws family members, who was none else but some of her own brother, which could not be acceded by the husband 2026:JHHC:19084 10 and his family members. Ultimately, this case was lodged on the allegation that the accused persons assaulted and driven away the complaint from matrimonial home on 13.07.2009. The fact that on 13.07.2009 presents attempted to kill the complainant by pressing her neck has also not been stated by the complainant at the time of her examination during trial. 16. It appears that the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court has laid much emphasis on the evidence of complainant that she still want to reside with her husband, if he keep her with due dignity and honour as stated in her evidence, but has ignored from consideration as to whether offence under Section 498A of I.P.C. is constituted in the factual background proved by the complainant in this case. It appears that neither in the charge under Section 498A of I.P.C. nor in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused person, any incriminating circumstance has been brought on record constituting cruelty as defined under Section 498A of I.P.C. There is simple assertion in the charge that since 2003 to 13.07.2009, the complainant was subjected to cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of demand of Rs. 2 Lacs. 17. In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons, I find that both learned trial court as well as learned appellate court 2026:JHHC:19084 11 has committed serious error of law in appreciating the evidence available on record and passed the impugned judgment only influenced by their emotions. Therefore, I find legal substance in the points of argument raised on behalf of the petitioners and merits in this revision. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the petitioners passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the appellate court is hereby set aside and this revision is allowed. 18. Petitioners are on bail. As such, they are discharged from the liability of bail bonds and sureties are also discharged. 19. Pending I.A., if any stands disposed of. 20. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to the concerned court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 30/06/2026 Sunil/-NAFR Uploaded on 30/06/2026