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: 13^th 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, 1^st 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.

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.

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 pe