Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Jitendra Kumar, J.
Md. Aftab Ahmad @ Aftab Ahmad, Son of late Nooruddin Ahmad - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar and ors. - Respondents
Criminal Revision No.23 of 2022
Decided On : 17-06-2025
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 397 & 401 (BNSS, 2023 – Sections 438 & 442) – Revisional jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court is a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC in order to correct the miscarriage of justice arising out of judgment, order, sentence or finding of subordinate Courts by looking into correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence of order as recorded or passed by subordinate Courts or as to the regularity of any proceeding of such interior Courts – ordinarily, it is not appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Trial and Appellate Court, unless there are exceptional situations like glaring error of law or procedure and perversity of finding, causing flagrant miscarriage of justice, brought to the notice of the High Court – In the present case, the petitioner/husband is alleged to coerce the opp. Party no. 2 (informant) wife and her relative to meet unlawful demand of dowry and in their regard, there is also allegation of committing physical and mental cruelty to the informant – Allegation of demand of dowry has already been found false by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court and the same has not been challenged by the informant in any higher Court – No cogent evidence adduced by the informant and her witnesses to prove any willful conduct on the part of the petitioner/husband against the informant/wife which could have caused grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the informant/wife – Also no evidence to prove the harassment with intent to coerce the informant or her relative to meet unlawful demand for any property or valuable security – Conviction by both the Courts based on perverse appreciation of evidence – Accordingly, present petition allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside. (Paras 41, 43, 54 to 57)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. description of the criminal case and allegations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. evidence presented by both parties. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. summary of trial and appellate court findings. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. arguments against the original conviction. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. examination of the revisional jurisdiction of the high court. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. judicial precedents regarding the scope of revisional jurisdiction. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. court's analysis on applicability of section 498a ipc. (Para 46 , 47) |
| 8. definition of cruelty under section 498a ipc. (Para 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 9. court's findings on the evidence and its sufficiency. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56) |
| 10. final decision to set aside conviction. (Para 57 , 58) |
JUDGMENT :
Jitendra Kumar, J.
The present Criminal Revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 29.09.2021, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2019, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court against the petitioner has been upheld, though the co-convict viz., Daizy was acquitted. Learned Trial Court vide judgment and order of sentence dated 21.05.2019 had found the petitioner herein guilty under Section 498A of the IPC and sentenced him to S.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to pay the fine, he was further directed to suffer additional S.I. for one month.
Prosecution Case
2. The prosecution case as emerging from the written report to the police is that the informant/Sanowar Jahan was married to the petitioner/Md Aftab Ahmad @ Aftab Ahmad in the year 1993 and a daughter was born out of the wedlock. At the time of marriage, Rs. 50,000/- in cash, jewelry of golden and silver, clothes, utensils and furniture were also given. After the marriage, the informant joined the matrimonial home. But, after some time, the husband, mother-in-law/Mumtaz Ara, sister-in- law, Kaisar Jahan and husband of sister-in-law, Fahimuddin started demanding additional dowry by way of motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/-, failing which she was threatened not to be allowed to settle at the matrimonial home. On account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, the accused started committing physical and mental cruelty against the informant. However, the same was tolerated by her, hoping that good day would come. But the accused persons kept torturing and depriving her of food. She used to inform her parents regarding the demand of dowry, but they used to express their inability to fulfill the demand and used to go to her matrimonial home to make the accused understand their inability to fulfill the demand. But despite that, the accused persons mixed poison in her food with intent to kill her. However, she got inkling that poison was mixed in her food and hence, she threw the food. The accused persons also tried to kill her. On 28.08.2001, the accused persons snatched all the gift items from the informant and ousted her from the matrimonial home after beating her. Somehow, she came back to her parental home along with her daughter. Evidence of Both the Parties
3. During trial, altogether the following witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution:-
(i) P.W.-1 is Md. Anwar Nasim.
(ii) P.W.-2 is Md. Nisar Ahmed.
(iii) P.W.-3 is Sanowar Jahan.
(iv) P.W.-4 is Shahid Ahmed.
4. The prosecution also brought on record the written complaint by marking it as Ext.-1. However, no other documentary evidence was produced by the prosecution.
5. In defence, the accused persons also examined the following witnesses.
(i) D.W.-1 is Ramprasad Choudhary
(ii) D.W.-2 is Rajendra Prasad
(iii) D.W.-3 is Kameshwar Prasad
6. Letter to Registrar, Patna High Court was also marked as Ext. A by the defence.
Findings of the Trial Court
7. After appreciating the evidence on record and considering the submissions advanced by the parties, learned Trial Court found only the petitioner herein Md. Aftab
Petitioner acquitted of charges under Section 498A IPC due to insufficient evidence of cruelty, demonstrating the High Court's role in correcting procedural misjudgments.
The High Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited; it cannot convert an acquittal into a conviction without manifest illegality or miscarriage of justice.
The victim's right to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal and the limited scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction against judgment of acquittal.
The court affirmed that minor discrepancies in evidence do not invalidate a conviction under Section 498-A IPC, emphasizing the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.
The main legal point established is that the definition of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code encompasses both mental and physical well-being of the wife, and actions leading to emot....
The judgment reaffirms that dowry-related cruelty under IPC Section 498A is a serious offense, validated by credible victim testimony and social realities of domestic abuse.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
