In a Criminal Revision application, the High Court of Jharkhand dismissed an appeal challenging an acquittal of the petitioner's husband in a dowry harassment case, holding that the revisional court cannot reassess evidence and found no illegality.
Criminal Revision application dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.Rev No. 358 of 2019 Jayanti Kumari Petitioner Vs.
1. The State of Jharkhand
--------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
For the Petitioner :- Mr. M.K.Sinha Advocate For the State :- Mr.V.K. Tiwary A.P.P.
2/Dated: 17.1.2020
.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 17.1.2019 passed in Cr.Appeal No. 138 of 2017 by which the criminal appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.
The informant filed a criminal case which was registered as Parsudih (Sundernagar)P. S. Case No. 2119 of 2012 for the offene punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and under section ¾ of the D.P.Act. The opposite party no.2 is the husband of the informant and there is an allegation that husband and in-laws tortured the informant, mentally and physically and had demanded dowry. There is an allegation that threat was given to the informant of dire consequence. It was alleged that because of torture the complainant had to leave the matrimonial home on 20/21th July 2012 and was residing in the parental house. On basis of the said allegation, Parsudih( Sundarnagar) P.S Case No. 160 of 2012 was registered under sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and under section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act and cognizance of the offence was taken and O.P. No.2 was summoned and charge was framed.
On behalf of the prosecution, nine witnesses were examined. After closer of the evidence, the statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded.
As the defamation case was filed against the elder sister of the informant, a false case was lodged. The trial court after considering the evidence of the different witnesses concluded that the prosecution has not been proved the charge and acquitted the husband of the petitioner by the judgment dated 7.9.2017. Aggrieved by the said judgment the informant preferred Cr.Appeal No. 138 of 2017 which was dismissed acquitting the husband of the petitioner.
Challenging the aforesaid judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner i.e. O.P. No. 2 has wrongly been acquitted. He further submits that there are sufficient materials against the O.P. No.2 in the alleged offence of cruelty and demand of dowry and there are enough materials against the husband i.e. opposite party which proves the guilt
of the husband but both the courts below could not appreciate the material, rather acquitted the husband, i.e. O.P. No.2 .He further submits that in view of the sufficient material against him, the trial court should have convicted the husband, i.e. O.P. No.2. He further submits that the court below has not appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
The learned A.P.P submits that both the courts below after assessing the evidence of the prosecution witness has acquitted the opposite party no. 2. He further submits that it is not a case where the evidence was not considered. Both the courts below after considering the evidence acquitted the opposite party no. 2. He further submits that sitting in a revisional jurisdiction this court cannot reappraise the evidence .
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the judgment of the both the court below, I find that nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and the trial court in details had discussed the evidence all the witnesses. P.W 4 did not support the prosecution case. P.W 5 is the father of the informant, his statement was also taken note of by the trial court. He has stated that O.P. No.2 had come to his house to take back his wife but his elder daughter prevented the wife of the O.P. No.2. After perusing the judgment I find that evidence of the prosecution witnesses have been discussed while passing the judgment and both the courts below have held that there are no material to convict the accused and prosecution has failed to prove the charge under sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Both the judgments are well reasoned and based on the evidence which has been discussed in the judgments. As the revisional court, I find no illegality or impropriety in the judgments, and the same is correct. Further this court cannot reassess the evidence as an appellate court. Moreover the findings are not also perverse.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find that there is no illegality in the impugned judgments passed by the both the courts below.
Accordingly, this Cr.Rev application is dismissed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
SD/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whetherevision jurisdiction enables the court to reappraise evidence already discussed and actuated by lower courts leading to acquittal?
Whetherthe impugned judgments are illegal or improper?
Whetherthe findings of lower courts are perverse?
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Jayanti Kumari
The State of Jharkhand
Alok Kumar Srivastava
Ananda Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
