2026:JHHC:21574 Cr. Revision No.147 of 2017 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 147 of 2017 …… 1. Shantimay Dey son of Nripendra Nath Dey 2. Nripendra Nath Dey son of Late Shanti Bhusan Dey 3. Debi Rani Dey, wife of Nripendra Nath Dey All resident of Tilaboni, P.O.-Surda, P.S. – Musaboni, District – Singhbhum East. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mithu Dey W/o Shantimay Dey, resident of Tilaboni, P.O.- Surda, P.S. – Musaboni, District – Singhbhum East. … Opp. Parties …… For the Petitioners : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Adv. Mrs. Vani Kumari, Adv. For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Birendra Burman, Adv. …… P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA …… ORDER C.A.V. on 29.06.2026 Pronounced on 20.07.2026 1. I have already heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned A.P.P for the State assisted by learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2. 2. Instant criminal revision has been filed by the petitioners challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of judgment dated 12.01.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ghatsila in Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 2016 2026:JHHC:21574 Cr. Revision No.147 of 2017 Page | 2 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioners assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence of the petitioners for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. to undergo R.I. for two years along with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation passed by learned A.C.J.M., Ghatsila in G.R. Case No. 77 of 2014 arising out of Musaboni P.S. Case No.12 of 2014 has been dismissed. 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that one Mithu Dey lodged a written report before the Mosaboni Police Station on 03.02.2014 stating inter alia that on 02.02.2014 at about 10:30 p.m., informant's husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law assaulted her in abdomen while she was carrying pregnancy about five months. It is further alleged that just after one month of her marriage, accused persons started demanding Rs.50,000/-, T.V., bed and other articles to bring from her father which could not be fulfilled and she was being subjected to cruelty and harassment including physical assault at the hands of her husband and in-laws. It is further alleged that in the month of August 2013, the above accused persons assaulted her, for which a Panchayati was convened at the Police Station itself. Thereafter, the accused 2026:JHHC:21574 Cr. Revision No.147 of 2017 Page | 3 persons threatened her to be killed by setting on ablaze. Therefore, she is going to her parental house. On the basis of above information, F.I.R. was registered for the offences under Sections 498A and 323 of the I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the above named accused persons. 4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for the aforesaid offences but charges were farmed for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused persons denied from charges and claimed to be tried. 5. In the course of trial, altogether 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Apart from oral evidence, following documentary evidenced has been adduced :- Exhibit 1 : Signature of the informant on the Written Report Exhibit 2 : Formal F.I.R. Exhibit 3 : O.P.D. Slip of the informant Exhibit 4 : Carbon Copy of injury report of the informant Exhibit 5 : Page 100 Sl. No.E/563 of casual register 2026:JHHC:21574 Cr. Revision No.147 of 2017 Page | 4 6. On the other hand, the case of defence is plea of innocence and false implication. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by defence. 7. The learned Trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence available on record arrived at conclusion about the guilt of the accused persons and convicted and sentenced them as stated above. The convicts preferred Cr. Appeal No. 145 of 2016 which has also been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court and assailed in this revision. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that both the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court has failed to properly consider the evidence available on record. The injury report produced by the informant during trial was itself a manipulated document and was never collected by the I.O. in the course of investigation. The conducting doctor has also been examined as P.W.10 and proved the O.P.D. slip as Ext.3. It is further submitted that due to matrimonial dispute and discard and non- compatibility of temperament between husband and wife, this false case was instituted by the informant. The petitioner has also lodged a divorce case which is still pending for adjudication. The wife has also filed a case for maintenance 2026:JHHC:21574 Cr. Revision No.147 of 2017 Page | 5 which has also been challenged by the petitioner. Both the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court has failed to consider that this case was lodged only with a view to harass and humiliate the petitioners without any substance and proof of any cruel conduct of the petitioner against his wife. The petitioner has also remained in custody about four months during pendency of trial out of R.I. for two years and sufficiently punished. Therefore, impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant may be set aside by allowing this revision. 9. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State assisted by learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 controverting the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the informant was subjected to cruelty both physical and mental at the hands of petitioners and they assaulted her in abdomen while she was carrying pregnancy about five months. The accused petitioners demanded Rs.50,000/- and furniture as additional dowry. There are consistent and concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court proving the guilt of petitioners for the offences under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and there is no valid reason pointed 2026:JHHC:21574 Cr. Revision No.147 of 2017 Page | 6 out by the learned counsel for the petitioners to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. It is further submitted that a maintenance case was also filed by the opposite party No.2 against her husband and total Rs.8,000/- per month as maintenance allowance has been allowed in favour of informant/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. 10. 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 informant 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 petitioners to take a different view from the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court. The injury report of the informant/victim which is marked as Ext.4 is also on record. The maintenance allowance has been granted Rs.8000/- per month which is 2026:JHHC:21574 Cr. Revision No.147 of 2017 Page | 7 also not being paid to the informant/wife by the petitioner No.1 husband. The cruel conduct of the petitioners have been fortified by prosecution witnesses. 11. In view of above discussion and reasons, I do not find any merits in this revision which stands dismissed. Petitioners are on bail, their bail bonds are hereby cancelled. Petitioners are 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 petitioners to secure their presence for serving the remaining part of sentence awarded to them. 12. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. 13. Let a copy of this order along with Trial Court record be sent to the concerned Court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 20/07/2026 Sachin / NAFR Uploaded On: 22/07/2026