Advocates:
['ATANU BANERJEE', '', 'ABHIJEET KR SINGH', 'HARSH CHANDRA', 'J PRASAD A P P', '', 'PRABHU DAYAL AGARWAL']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Revision No. 657 of 2006

Ratan Sao.

..… Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand.

..... Opposite Party

---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Adv.

For the State

: Mr. P.D.Agrawal, Spl.PP

---------

05/Dated: 25^th August, 2022

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

This revision application is directed against the

judgment dated 19.05.2006 passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Bokaro, in Cr. Appeal No. 55 of

2005; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence, both dated 29.06.2005, passed by learned Judicial

Magistrate, 1st Class, Bermo Teunghat, Bokaro in Petarbar,

P.S. Case No. 81 of 1991 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 882

of 1991; whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section

498 A of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo S.I. for 2

years, has been dismissed and order of trial court was

sustained.

3.

The prosecution case as per written information dated

02.09.1991 of Dawarika Prasad is that the sister of the

informant was married with Accused-Ratan Sao 8 years ago

and they were blessed with two children. The accused got

service in place of his father in Swang Colliery last year and

thereafter he started torturing Nirmla Devi. On 30.08.1991

Nirmala Devi-P.W.1 went to her Maikae and informed the

informant about act of her husband then he along with his

2

sister Nirmala went to village Jebra to meet Ratan Sao. On

query Ratan Sao became angry and started abusing him. He

also has assaulted Nirmala with fist and leg before him and

said that he will marry with another girl.

4.

Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that it is a peculiar case where conviction

has been made on the basis of mere surmises and conjecture;

none of the allegation is specific in order to attract the charge

under Section 498 A IPC and all the allegations are vague. He

further draws attention of this court towards paragraph 5 of

the judgment, wherein at one place the learned appellate

court has held that the petitioner herein has married with one

Anju Devi and the complainant-Nirmala is living in the

quarter in Swang where the petitioner is not living. By

referring this finding of the appellate court, learned counsel

submits that there is no iota of evidence in order to show that

she was ousted from the house due to non-fulfilment of

demand of dowry, as the appellant himself admitted that the

O.P.No.2 is living in the same quarter which has been allotted

to the petitioner.

He further submits that in the instant case, neither the

informant nor the investigating officer of the case has been

examined. Though, the learned trial court has mentioned the

details of object for enactment of Section 498 A IPC and held

that there is no need of independent witness in the case of

matrimonial dispute, but it has not uttered a single word that

3

even in the absence of examination of informant; conviction

will sustain.

He further submits that though in the first information

report there is allegation that her husband/petitioner has

married to another lady, but there is no charge of under

Section 494 IPC. Relying upon the aforesaid submissions,

learned counsel submits that it is a fit case where the

petitioner should be acquitted from all the charges.

5.

Mr. P.D.Agrawal, learned Addl. P.P. oppose the prayer

of the petitioner for acquittal and further submits that there

are concurrent finding of two courts and as such, the

petitioner should not be acquitted.

6.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after

going through the LCR and the impugned judgments it

appears that the prosecution case was lodged at the initiation

of FIR which has been lodged by brother of the victim wife.

Interestingly, the informant himself has not