The central legal point established in the judgment is the unconstitutionality of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code as declared by the Supreme Court, which rendered the petitioner's conviction and sentence legally unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Das, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

2. Heard Mrs. Vandana Bharti, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State-Opposite Party.

3. The present criminal revision petition is directed against the Judgment dated 01.10.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Appeal No. 90/2008 whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence of the petitioner under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned trial court and dismissed the criminal appeal.

4. The learned trial court, vide Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 17.07.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Daltonganj, Palamau in G.R. Case No. 33 of 2001/ Trial No. 165 of 2008 (arising out of Lesliganj P.S. Case No. 01/2001), had convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the outset, submitted that the petitioner has been convicted under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code which has been declared unconstitutional by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Joseph Shine -versus- Union of India decided on 27.09.2018 reported in (2019) 3 SCC 39 and therefore, once the Section itself has been declared ultra-vires to the Constitution, no conviction under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code can be sustained.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rupesh –versus- Shri Charandas reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Bombay 6292 wherein the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Joseph Shine (Supra) has been followed and the conviction and sentence under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code has been set aside under revisional jurisdiction.

7. He further submitted that for securing the ends of justice, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 497 of Indian Penal Code is fit to be set aside.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that otherwise also, the petitioner has a good case on merit as evidences on record show that the petitioner has been convicted on the basis of hearsay evidence and on presumption and accordingly, the prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer and submitted that both the learned courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts and accordingly, no interference is called for in the present case under revisional jurisdiction. However, it is not in dispute that Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code has been declared unconstitutional by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Joseph Shine -versus- Union of India.

Findings of this Court

10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the impugned judgments and the lower court records of the case, this Court finds that the prosecution case is based on the written report dated 06.01.2001 lodged by the Informant namely, Arun Kumar Mehta (P.W.-8) alleging inter-alia that the Informant’s wife namely, Nirmala Devi was absent in his house since 25.12.2000 at about 06:00 P.M. and he was informed by his sister’s son (Bhagina) that on the same day, the Informant’s wife has fled away from the house towards south with the petitioner and when he saw her and asked her as to where she is going, then they scolded him and told him not to disclose to anyone and after showing an arm, the petitioner threatened to kill him. It was further alleged that there was illicit relationship between Nirmala Devi and the petitioner.

11. On the basis of the written report, the case was regis