Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 24181 (JHR)

JITENDRA SINGH ALIAS JEETAN SINGH v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Cr.Rev./1164/2015 · 2026-08-24

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:25487 Cr. Revision No.1164 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1164 of 2015 --------- Jitendra Singh @ Jeetan Nath Singh, son of Prem Nath Singh, Resident of Rangamatia, P.O. & P.S.-Baliapur, Dist. Dhanbad … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Babita Singh @ Babita Devi, aged 47 years, daughter of Siya Ram Singh, W/o-Jitendra Nath Singh, R/o-village-Rangamatia, Rayabash, P.O. &P.S.- Baliapur, Dist. Dhanbad …. Opp. Parties --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : None ----------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ---------- Dated: 24th August, 2026 1. Heard Mr. Shekhar Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. However, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party No.2 Babita Singh. Notice through DLSA, Dhanbad was issued to opposite party No.2, but the same could not be served due to her whereabouts being untraceable. 2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.06.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No.161 of 2010, whereby and whereunder the appellate court has upheld and confirmed the judgment/order dated 05.07.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in Baliapur P.S. Case No.85 of 1998 2026:JHHC:25487 Cr. Revision No.1164 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. Case No.3058 of 1998/T.R. No.176 of 2010, whereby and whereunder learned trial court has convicted the petitioner for the offence under section 498A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 2 years along with a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation. Factual Matrix:- 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this criminal revision is that the marriage of the informant/opposite party No.2, Babita Singh was solemnized with the petitioner in the year, 1996 as per to Hindu Rites and Customs. After marriage, she went to her matrimonial home but from the very day of marriage, the petitioner started demanding additional dowry from the opposite party No.2 in the form of Rs.50,000/- cash, bed, two-in-one tap and fan. It is further alleged that upon demand of additional dowry, the opposite party No.2 informed the matter to her father to which her father expressed his inability to fulfill the aforesaid demand. Thereafter, she was subjected to cruelty both mentally and physical at the hands of her husband(petitioner). In the meantime, the opposite party No.2 blessed with one female child and subsequently, the petitioner wrote a letter to her mother alleging that she will commit suicide by consuming poison. Thereafter, the mother of the opposite party No.2 arrived at her matrimonial home where she was assaulted by the petitioner in presence of her mother to enforce the demand of money and other household 2026:JHHC:25487 Cr. Revision No.1164 of 2015 articles. On 02.09.2008, the opposite party No.2 left her matrimonial home fearing apprehension of her life along with her child. Submission on behalf of petitioner:- 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner without touching the merits of the judgment has confined himself towards the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner by the learned trial court and upheld by learned appellate court. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under section 498A of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for three months during trial and post- conviction of the case. The occurrence is of the year, 1998 and more than two decades have elapsed. Therefore, sentence of 2 years awarded by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court may be altered/modified to the extent of imprisonment already undergone. Submission on behalf of State:- 5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has defended the judgement on merits but so far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, it is submitted that in the factual aspect of the case, an appropriate order may be passed. Analysis, Reasons and Decision:- 6. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment and order in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of both side. 2026:JHHC:25487 Cr. Revision No.1164 of 2015 7. It appears that the informant, Babita Devi, who has been examined as P.W.1, has proved the allegation of cruelty as alleged in the FIR deposing that she was physically assaulted by the petitioner in the presence of her mother, when her mother came to her matrimonial home after receiving a letter written by the petitioner that the informant/victim has consumed poison. The above fact has been corroborated by the P.W.2, Shivani Devi, who happens to be mother of the informant. Hence, on merits, there is no requirement to interfere with the concurrent findings of the court below on the point of conviction. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and also in view of the fact that the petitioner has already remained in custody for 3 months during pendency of trial and post-conviction, which appears to be sufficient punishment for his guilt for the offence committed by the petitioner in the factual background of this case. 9. In view of above discussions and reasons, the impugned judgment is upheld on merits but so far as his sentence is concerned, the petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. 10. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed with modification in sentence as stated above. 11. The petitioner is on bail, as such, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged. 12. Pending I.As., if any, is disposed off. 2026:JHHC:25487 Cr. Revision No.1164 of 2015 13. Let a copy of this order along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned immediately for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi 24/08/2026 Pappu/- N.A.F.R/- Uploaded On 25/08/2026