JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Vibhor Mayank, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Jitendra Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the opposite party-State.

3. The present criminal revision has been filed, challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the Judgment dated 25.5.2012, passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Latehar, in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2010, whereby, the learned Appellate Court has been pleased to dismiss the appeal, preferred by the petitioner against the Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 20.9.2010, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Latehar, in Complaint Case No. 7 of 2007, T.R. No. 143 of 2010. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Trial Court, for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. It was further directed that in case of default in payment of fine, the petitioner would further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders are perverse, in as much as, the case does not come under the definition of “cruelty” either under Explanation (a) of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code or under Explanation (b) to the said Section. He submits that the allegation of “cruelty”, as defined under Explanations (a) or (b) of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is totally absent in the present case.

5. Learned counsel while referring to the impugned Judgments has submitted that there is no allegation of demand of any kind of property and as such the applicability of Explanation (b) of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is ex-facie excluded. He further submits that the petitioner was ultimately acquitted for the alleged offence under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

6. He further refers to Explanation (a) of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, and submits that the said explanation is attracted only when the conduct of the accused is of such a nature that such ‘cruelty’ is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or heath of the woman and there is no dispute that such cruelty could be mental or physical. Learned counsel submits that there is no finding recorded by the learned courts below that the conduct of the petitioner was such, which was likely to drive the complainant-wife to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health. He further submits that the only allegation which appears from the Trial Court’s Judgment is that the petitioner did not conduct gauna (second marriage) of the complainant and this conduct of the petitioner was the cause for filing a complaint case against the petitioner. He submits that the impugned Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. Versus M. Madhusudhan Rao, reported in (2008) 15 SCC 582.

Arguments on behalf of the opposite party-State

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and submitted that there are consistent findings, recorded by the learned courts below and there is no scope for re-appreciation of the evidence before this Court in the revisional jurisdiction and, accordingly, the conviction and sentence, which are impugned in the present case cannot be interfered with.

Learned counsel has, however, submitted that the revisional jurisdiction of this High Court is very limited and the arguments of the petitioner do not call for any interference by this Court in the revisional jurisdiction.

Findings of this Court

9. The present case arises out of a complaint, filed by the opposite party No. 2 before the learned court below on