JUDGMENT

C.A.V. On 20.06.2024 Pronounced On: 14 .08 .2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Present Criminal Revision is directed against conformation of conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code by the appellate court vide Judgment dated 8^th September, 2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2013 by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner XVIII, Ranchi.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that informant Hasina Khatoon(P.W.

4) was married with the present petitioner in the year 2006 in accordance with Muslim Rites and Customs. After marriage she joined the company of petitioner at her matrimonial home and one year passed in cordial relations, thereafter the present petitioner and his parents started demanding more money and in that pretext she was being assaulted and tortured both mentally and physically hence, she was compelled to reside at her parental home and lodge this case. Several times panchayaties were also convened but of no result.

4. On the basis of information Sikidiri P.S. Case No.02 of 2008 was registered for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and after completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the present petitioner. The petitioner denied the charges leveled against him and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of trial petitioner was held guilty by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Ranchi and sentenced to undergo RI for two and half years alongwith fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation.

The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid conviction and sentence passed by learned trial court by preferring Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2013 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ranchi which was also dismissed and the impugned Judgment and Order passed by learned trial court was confirmed and upheld.

5. The petitioner assailing the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned orders has filed this Criminal Revision mainly on the following grounds:-

i. Altogether four witnesses were examined by the prosecution who have given different stories regarding day, date and time of any demand of additional dowry. In the FIR itself there was no allegation about the nature of demand and accurate money demanded and when Panchayati was convened.

ii. The brother of the informant (P.W. 2), namely, Kalam Hussain has himself admitted that due to second marriage of the informant with the petitioner she could not adjust in the family of the petitioner, resultantly, Talak was taken in Khulla form by the informant.

iii. P.W. 3 happens to be the father of the informant. P.W. 1, Anwar Ansari is also relative of the informant and P.W. 4 is the informant herself.

iv. On the other hand the petitioner has also examined two witnesses who have categorically proved that the informant was desiring to live at her parental home alongwith her husband (petitioner) which was not acceded by the petitioner hence, she left the matrimonial home and inspite of attempt made for reconciliation she did not join the company of the petitioner rather took “Khulla” divorce.

v. No ingredient of offence under Section 498-A IPC has been proved by the prosecution. It is a case instituted only to harass the petitioner as a matter of vengeance.

vi. In spite of service of notice to the informant through her brother she did not opt to appear in this case to contest.

vii. The petitioner has remained in custody during investigation and trial about four months.

6. Per contra, learned APP appearing for the State defending the impugned Judgment and Order has submitted that there are cogent and reliable evidence against the petitioner constituting the offence under Section 498-A IPC which has been properly analyzed and appreciated by the learned trial court as well as the appellate court and conviction and sentence of the petitioner was upheld. The petitioner has failed to point out material illegality in the impugned Judgment and Order calling for any interference by way of this revision