##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1465 of 2016 ---------

Sanjay Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar, Son of Late Shiv Lal Prasad, resident of Bari Badalpur, P.O. and P.S.-Khagaul (Danapur), District-Patna, Bihar ……Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Sushma Devi, wife of Sri Sanjay Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar, resident of Qr. No.204/2/7, Chhota Govindpur, P.O. and P.S.-Govindpur, Town Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum …. Opp.Parties With Cr. Revision No. 23 of 2017 ---------

Sushma Devi, W/o-Sri Sanjay Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar, Resident of Qr. No.204//2/7, Chhota Govindpur, P.O. and P.S.-Govindpur, Town Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum … … Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Sanjay Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar, S/o-Late Shivlal Prasad

3. Asha Devi, W/o-Binod Paswan

5. Binod Paswan, S/o-Shri Keshav Prasad, both resident of 27, Shapur, Sampatchak P.O. & P.S.-Sampatckok, District-Patna …. Opp.Parties ----------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Salona Mittal, Amicus Curiae [In Cr. Rev. No.1465 of 2016] Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate [In Cr. Rev. No.23 of 2017]

For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P.

[In Cr. Rev. No.1465 of 2016]

Mr. Arup Dey, A.P.P.

[In Cr. Rev. No.23 of 2017]

For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate ---------

PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORDERS -----------

CAV On 01/07/2026 Pronounced on 11/08/2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Both the above criminal revisions are arising out of common order, hence are being heard together and disposed of by common order.

3. It has been informed that the opposite party No.3, Ram Sakhi Devi in Cr. Revision No.23 of 2017 has died during pendency of this revision. This revision, therefore, stands abated so far as opposite party No.3 is concerned. The names of above surviving opposite parties of Cr. Revision No.23 of 2017, namely, Sanjay Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar, Asha Devi and Binod Paswan have been renumbered and the revision is heard on behalf of the aforesaid alive opposite parties.

4. In both the revisions, the petitioners have challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of the conviction and sentence passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Jamshedpur dated 17.08.2011 in C/1 Case No.207 of 2008, wherein the petitioner of Cr. Revision No.1465 of 2016 and opposite party Nos.2-5 in Cr. Revision No.23 of 2017 were held guilty for the offence under section 498A of IPC and sections 3/4 of D.P. Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under section 498A of IPC and R.I. for 2 years along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence under sections 3/4 of D.P. Act with default stipulation. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The convicts preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge vide Criminal Appeal No.159 of 2011, which was heard and decided by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamshedpur vide judgment dated 31.08.2016, whereby and whereunder the conviction and sentence of the appellant(petitioner) in Cr. Revision No.1465 of 2016 for the offence under section 498A of IPC was set aside and conviction and sentence for the offence under sections 3/4 of D.P. Act was upheld and confirmed. Other co-convicts/O.P. Nos.2 to 5 in Cr. Rev. No.23 of 2017 was acquitted from both the charges extending the benefit of doubts.

Instant criminal revision i.e. Cr. Revision No.1465 of 2016 is directed against the judgment dated 31.08.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamshedpur in Cr. Appeal No.159 of 2011, whereby and whereunder the petitioner(appellant) was acquitted from the offence under section 498A of IPC but conviction and sentence for the offence under section 3/4 of D.P. Act was upheld and confirmed.

5. Criminal Revision No.23 of 2017 has been filed by the complainant-

cum-victim challenging the acquittal of co-convicts, namely, Ram Sakhi Devi (now deceased), Asha Devi and Binod Pas