Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 1324
PATNA HIGH COURT
MR. BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J
Ratnesh Kumar Sinha – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION No.551 of 2024 | CRIMINAL REVISION No. 561 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan, Advocate, Ms. Aastha Ananya, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Yogendra Kumar, Advocate
The conviction under Section 498A upheld, emphasizing the evidentiary importance of witnesses in dowry harassment cases, despite claims regarding the admissibility of the FIR.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 498A - Dowry harassment - Conviction of husband and in-laws upheld for demanding dowry and subjecting wife to cruelty. - The petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court, which was affirmed by the Appellate Court with modified sentence. There was sufficient evidence regarding the dowry demands and cruelty inflicted on the victim. (Paras 2, 12, 60)
(B) Evidence Act - Sections 61, 65, and 162 - The significance of FIR in evidence - The court noted that the FIR can only be substantive evidence if properly admitted, even if the first informant has died before the trial. (Paras 10, 11, 21)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was convicted for dowry harassment, following a complaint by the victim's father, who alleged ongoing demands for dowry from the in-laws post-marriage. Accusations included physical and mental cruelty inflicted on the victim, as well as demands for cash and a motorcycle. (Paras 4, 6, 9)
Findings of Court:
The evidence was sufficient to uphold the conviction. The Appellate Court's reduction of sentence was scrutinized, affirming the conviction while recalling mitigating circumstances over the lengthy trial. (Paras 63, 62)
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the FIR admission after the informant's death and sufficient evidence for dowry harassment and cruelty. (Paras 10, 60)
Ratio Decidendi: The courts confirmed that the evidence supported the conviction under Section 498A, reflectively rejecting the contrived objections raised against the FIR's validity due to prior contradictions. The provisions of the Evidence Act concerning FIRs were clarified. (Paras 10, 11, 60)
Result: Both Criminal Revisions dismissed, and the petitioner directed to surrender within 15 days. (Paras 65, 67)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common judgment for two revisions (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. factual basis of marriage and dowry demands (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 9) |
| 3. examination of evidence provided by witnesses (Para 7 , 8 , 10) |
| 4. legal standards for evaluating evidence (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. validity of fir submission in absence of informant (Para 15 , 18) |
| 6. content admissibility of fir and witness examination (Para 19 , 20 , 22) |
| 7. dowry-related harassment established by evidence (Para 30 , 31 , 59 , 60) |
| 8. revision outcome and sentencing decision (Para 63 , 64 , 65) |
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 09-05-2025
1. Both the revisional applications challenged one and identical order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner of Cr. Revision No. 551 of 2024. Therefore, both the criminal revisions are disposed of by a common judgement.
2. In Criminal Revision No. 551 of 2024, the petitioner has challenged the correctness, legality and propriety of an order of conviction for committing offence under Section 498A of the IPC and consequent order of sentence, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd, Patna, in Criminal Revision No. 195 of 2017, affirming the order of conviction, passed by the learned SDJM, Patna in G. R. Case No. 5207 of 2004, modifying the order of sentence by imposing rigorous imprisonment of two years instead of rigorous imprisonment of three years, passed by the learned SDJM, Patna, in G.R. Case No. 5207 of 2004 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC.
3. Criminal Revision No. 561 of 2024, on the other hand, is filed by the victim Anupama Kumari, praying for enhancement of sentence of rigorous imprisonment, which was modified and reduced by one year by the Court of Appeal.
4. Indisputably, marriage of the Opposite Party No. 2 in Criminal Revision No. 551 of 2024 and the petitioner of Criminal Revision No. 561 of 2024 was solemnized with the convict according to the Hindu Rites and Ceremonies on 29th of November, 2002. The marriage of the parties was mediated by one Anand Bhushan Sahai, a distant relative of the family of the groom. During the talk of marriage, father of the convict told the father of the bride that as his son had been staying in Pune in the State of Maharashtra for the purpose of his job, he would pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash so that newly married couple would purchase the household goods, like Bed, T.V, Fridge, Sofa, Washing Machine, Dining Table etc. as wedding gift. The father of the bride paid the said amount to Satyadeo Narayan Sinha, father of the convict of Criminal Revision No. 551 of 2024. As per local ritual, engagement and Tilak was performed on 19th of May, 2002 and 26th of November, 2002 respectively and marriage was solemnized on 29th of November, 2002. At the time of marriage, father of the bride gifted jewelry to his daughter worth Rs. 90,000/- and cash of Rs. 60,000/-. Thus, he spent in all Rs. 3,00,000/- to purchase gift items for the newly married couple, jewelry and cash money. After marriage, the daughter of the de facto complainant went to her matrimonial home in Ara on 30th of January, 2002. On 4th of December, 2002, newly married couple came to the house of the informant at Patna. Subsequently, the father of the groom and his younger son and other relatives came to the house of the informant for Duragaman. During lunch, the father of the groom claimed a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- in cash as dowry from the father of the bride and a motorcycle for the groom. The informant told him that there was no demand or agreement for payment of dowry in the form of cash money and motorcycle at the time of settlement of marriage and he expressed his inability to pay such huge amount of money to the father of the groom. At this, father of the groom told the de facto complainant that unless he would pay the said amount in cash and a motorcycle, there would not be any Duragaman. Finally, the de facto complainant gave a Titan Wrist Watch to his son-in-law and only then Duragaman was performed. A
