2026:JHHC:22013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 86 of 2017 -------- Pramod Pal @ Parmod Pal, S/o. Shri Suneshwar Pal, R/o. Sudana, P.O. & P.S.- Daltenganj, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Urmila Devi, W/o. Pramod Pal, D/o. Indradeo Pd., presently R/o. Vill.+ P.O.- Baliyapur, P.S.- Baliyapur, Dist.- Dhanbad. …… Opp. Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate : Mrs. Arpita Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : None Judgment Dated: 24th July, 2026 By Court:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. No one has appeared on behalf of the O.P. No. 2. 2. Instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment passed by learned Dist. & Addl. Sessions Judge-IV, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 67/2011 dated 15th September, 2016, whereby and whereunder, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner Pramod Pal @ Parmod Pal for the offence under Sections 498A & 323 of the I.P.C. passed by the learned Trial Court and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one and half years alongwith the fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. and R.I. for three months for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. with default stipulation, has been upheld by the learned Appellate Court. 2026:JHHC:22013 2 | P a g e (Cr. Rev. No. 86 of 2017) Factual Matrix:- 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is on the basis of written report filed on 06.09.2005 by the opposite party no.2 before the Officer-in-charge, Baliapur police station, alleging therein that she was married with the present petitioner on 27.02.2002 as per Hindu rites and customs at Bageshwari Temple, Gaya and after marriage, she went to her matrimonial house situated at Sudna Daltenganj. It is further alleged that just after marriage, the accused Pramod Pal, mother-in-law Samundri Devi, Bhaisur Ashok Pal, Nandosi Awdhesh Pal and Nand Shila Devi started physical and mental torture for demanding a colour T.V., Gas Stove and Cash of Rs. 50,000/-. It is further alleged that the opposite party no. 2 informed the matter of demand to her father and accordingly her father came to her in-laws house and brought her back to her parents' house. It is further alleged that on 27.02.2004, she returned to her in-laws house along with her husband Pramod Pal but the accused persons started torture in connection with unlawful demand of dowry. When the opposite party no. 2 replied that her father being a poor person is unable to fulfill the aforesaid demand of dowry, all the accused persons told her that if the aforesaid demand is not fulfilled, she will not be permitted to live in her in-laws house. Thereafter, she was assaulted and abused in filthy language and compelled her to go to her parental house. 4. On the basis of above written report, F.I.R. being Baliapur P.S. Case No. 98 of 2005 was registered for the offence under Sections 498A & 323/34 of the I.P.C. against above named petitioner and other co-accused persons. 2026:JHHC:22013 3 | P a g e (Cr. Rev. No. 86 of 2017) 5. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the present petitioner and other accused persons for the offences under Sections 498A/323/34 of the I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act. Cognizance was taken against the accused persons and charges were famed. 6. The accused persons including present petitioner denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 7. In the Course of trial, altogether 5 witnesses were examined by the prosecution apart from following documentary evidence:- I. Ext.-1: Written Report II. Ext.-2: Injury Report dated 17.05.2004 8. On the other hand, defence has also adduced altogether five witnesses apart from following documentary evidenced:- I. Ext.-A: C/c of Sahar P.S. G.D. No. 402/2004 II. Ext.-A/1: C/c of Sahar P.S. Sanha No. 408/2004 9. The learned Trial Court, after considering the oral as well as documentary evidences adduced by the prosecution as well as defence and after hearing the parties, found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Sections 498A & 323 of the I.P.C and sentenced him as stated above. 10. Against the above judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal bearing Cr. Appeal No. 67 of 2011 before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, wherein the learned Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, which has been assailed in this revision. 2026:JHHC:22013 4 | P a g e (Cr. Rev. No. 86 of 2017) Submission on behalf of the Petitioner:- 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner, without touching the merits of the impugned judgment, has confined himself towards the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has sentenced the petitioner to undergo R.I. for one and half years for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. and R.I. for three months for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C., out of which the petitioner has remained in custody for about Nine Months. It is further submitted that the doctor, who treated the victim (opposite party no. 2) has not been examined. The opposite party no. 2 has left her matrimonial house on her own accord and the petitioner and his family members were keeping her in his house with full dignity and honour but she declined to live in the sasural. It is a case of year 2005 and more than 20 years have elapsed, hence, sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. Submission on behalf of the State:- 12. On the other hand learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and has submitted that there are concurrent finding of the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court regarding cruelty, assault and demand of dowry. The petitioner has rightly been convicted and sentenced by the learned Trial court and the same has been upheld by the learned Appellate Court. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and this revision is fit to be dismissed. 2026:JHHC:22013 5 | P a g e (Cr. Rev. No. 86 of 2017) Analysis, discussion and reasons:- 13. I have gone through the impugned judgments passed by the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court. 14. It appears that in the course of trial, altogether five witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and two documentary evidences have also been adduced. 15. Defence has also examined five witnesses and two documentary evidences. 16. From the evidence of prosecution, it appears that PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 have consistently stated about the marriage of the opposite party no. 2 with present petitioner. PW-5 is the investigating officer of this case. The evidence of victim finds corroboration from other witnesses of facts about demand of dowry as cash, color T.V. and Gas stove and consequent torture and harassment due to non- fulfillment of aforesaid demand by the father of victim (O.P. No.2). 17. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court. 18. So far the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner is concerned, it appears that occurrence is of the year 2004 and more than two decades have been elapsed. The petitioner has got no criminal background except this case and during the pendency of this case, he has also not indulged in any other criminal activity. The petitioner has already remained in custody for about nine months out of one and half years of imprisonment awarded by the learned Trial Court. 2026:JHHC:22013 6 | P a g e (Cr. Rev. No. 86 of 2017) 19. Hence, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, conviction of the petitioner is hereby upheld and confirmed and sentence awarded to the petitioner by the learned Trial Court and upheld by the learned Appellate Court is modified to the extent of imprisonment already undergone by him. 20. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above. 21. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. 22. It appears that the petitioner is on bail. As such, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged. 23. Let a copy of this order be sent through FAX to the concerned Court for information and needful. 24. Let the trial court records also be sent the concerned Trial Court. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Dated:24/07/2026 Rahul/NAFR Uploaded on 28/07/2026