2026:JHHC:10495 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 558 of 2016 -------- Arjun Mahato, S/o. Raghu Teli, R/o. Vill.- Singra Basti, P.O. & P.S.- Mahuda, Dist.- Dhanbad, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Subhadra Devi, W/o. Arjun Mahato, D/o. Sukar Teli, R/o. Pipratand, P.O. & P.S.- Madhuban, Dist.- Dhanbad. …… Opp. Parties -------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Md. Om Prakash Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P. Order No. 16/ Dated: 13th April, 2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. 2. This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment dated 12.03.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 2010, whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court has partly allowed the appeal of co-acccused persons and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.08.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C. P. Case No. 591 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the present petitioner including co- accused persons have been held guilty for the offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the D.P. Act and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Two years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- each with default stipulation. All the sentences awarded to the accused are directed to run concurrently. 2026:JHHC:10495 2 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 558 of 2016) 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of complaint petition filed by the complainant, namely, Subhadra Devi, alleging therein that she was married to the present petitioner one and half years ago. After marriage, the petitioner including co-accused persons started demanding Rs. 10,000/-, Colour T.V. and a motorcycle. To enforce the demand, she was tortured. She also lost her pregnancy. Panchayti was held but the accused persons did not follow the dictum of Panchayat and ultimately she was driven away from her matrimonial home. 4. On the basis of above, complaint case was registered as C.P. Case No. 591 of 2002 on 06.05.2002 for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act against the accused persons. 5. After inquiry, the trial court summoned the accused persons. Charges were framed against the petitioner including co-accused persons for the offences under Section 498A/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The learned trial court after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and after hearing the parties found the petitioner as well as co-accused persons guilty for the offence under Sections 498A of the I.P.C and Section 4 of the D.P. Act and sentenced them accordingly. However, petitioner and co- accused were not found guilty for the offence under Section 3 of the D.P. Act, and hence, they were acquitted for the said offence. 2026:JHHC:10495 3 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 558 of 2016) 7. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner and co-accused persons have preferred an appeal bearing Cr. Appeal No. 211 of 2010 before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, wherein the appellate court affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the present petitioner and acquitted the co-accused persons from the charges levelled against them as prosecution could not prove its case against them. In the instant revision, the petitioner has challenged the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 2010. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years, out of which he has already remained in custody for about 09 months during trial of the case. It is further submitted that in the year 2001, their marriage was solemnized and just after two months of marriage, the complainant instituted the instant case. It is also contended that no other case was filed by the victim or by the present petitioner against each other. It is also submitted that more than two decades have been lapsed from the date of occurrence. The petitioner has suffered agony of trial of the case for considerable period and has sufficiently been punished for his guilt. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner without entering into the merits of the judgment, has confined himself towards the quantum of sentences awarded to him and prays for modification of the sentence awarded to the petitioner to the period of custody already undergone. 9. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has defended the impugned judgment on merits but has fairly admitted that it is a case of the year 2026:JHHC:10495 4 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 558 of 2016) 2001 based on complaint case. There is concrete finding of guilt of the petitioner recorded by the Court below. So far modification in sentence is concerned, in the factual aspect of the case, appropriate order may be passed. 10. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court as well as by the learned appellate court. It appears that there is concurrent finding of both the courts below about the guilt of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act. The finding of facts of the court below appears to be correct, legal and proper, requiring no interference on merits by way of this revision. 11. So far sentence awarded to the petitioner is concerned, admittedly out of two years of rigorous imprisonment, he has sustained substantial part of the imprisonment to the extent of about 09 months. 12. It appears that the date of alleged occurrence was of the year 2001 and more than 25 years have been passed from the alleged occurrence. The petitioner has sustained agony of trial for the aforesaid period and has also served sentence for about 09 months. The parties have settled in their own life and no other case is pending against each other. 13. Under the aforementioned circumstances, in the interest of justice, the imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner appears to be sufficient punishment for the offence committed by him. 2026:JHHC:10495 5 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 558 of 2016) 14. In view of above discussion and reasons, impugned judgment of the Court below is upheld on merits but with modification in sentence to the extent mentioned above, i.e., the petitioner is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. 15. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed on merits with modification/alteration in the sentence. 16. The petitioner is on bail, as such, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged. 17. Let a copy of this order along with trial court record be sent back to the concerned court immediately for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 13.04.2026 Rahul Uploaded on 16/04/2026