Dismissed¶73

State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner Pal v. Rajesh Pandey And Ors.

Jharkhand HC7 Apr 2026Acq. App./26/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Acquittal appeal by State of Jharkhand dismissed; dowry cruelty prosecution (Section 498A IPC; Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act) originating from Daltonganj Town/Sadar P.S. Case No.45 of 1999, Palamau; acquittal upheld because appellate court considered defence evidence — inter-se agreement/partition of property, ghar jamai expectation, false implication of entire family including nanad — which trial court ignored, and no injury report supported alleged bleeding injury; six witnesses examined; no precedent cases cited; decided 07.04.2026 by Justice Rajesh Kumar.

What did the court decide?

None — the acquittal of the accused persons under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act stands upheld; the State's acquittal appeal is dismissed. ¶73

State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner Pal Vs… — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — the acquittal of the accused persons under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act stands upheld; the State's acquittal appeal is dismissed.

¶73

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment of acquittal dated 09.08.2007 passed in Cr. Appeal No.88 of 2006 is sustainable, given counsel for the State's contention that there was sufficient evidence of dowry demand and harassment satisfying the ingredients of Section 498A IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. +1 more

¶59

Court's answer

Although it was stated that the alleged victim/wife sustained a bleeding injury and obtained treatment for it, no such injury report was brought on record.

¶71

Ratio / Principle

The trial court did not deal with the defence put forward by the accused persons in cross-examination, nor with the exhibit marked as the agreement between the parties.

¶69

Key takeaways

The appellate court appreciated the evidence properly, taking into account the defence put by the accused persons and the fact that the entire family members had been made accused.ratio¶70
The order of acquittal is a well-reasoned order, passed after considering the entire evidence brought on record.ratio¶72
This Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal dated 09.08.2007 passed in Cr. Appeal No.88 of 2006; accordingly, the acquittal appeal is dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi (Rajesh Kumar, J.; decided 07.04.2026) dismisses the State's acquittal appeal (Acq. Appeal No.26 of 2007) directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 09.08.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Daltonganj, Palamau in Cr. Appeal No.88 of 2006, arising out of Daltonganj Town P.S. Case No.45 of 1999, G.R. No.189 of 1999, concerning charges under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act (F.I.R.: Sadar P.S. Case No.45 of 1999). The Court upheld the acquittal as well-reasoned: unlike the trial court, the appellate court had engaged with the defence — an agreement between the parties based on division of property, the expectation that the husband reside as ghar jamai, and the roping-in of the entire family including the married nanad suggesting possible false implication; moreover, although a bleeding injury was alleged and treatment claimed, no injury report was produced. Finding no reason to interfere, the Court dismissed the appeal.

¶1

2026:JHHC:9729

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acq. Appeal No.26 of 2007

¶3

....

¶4

[Against the judgment of acquittal dated 09.08.2007 passed in Cr. Appeal No.88 of 2006, arising out of Daltonganj Town P.S. Case No.45 of 1999, G.R. No.189 of 1999 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Daltonganj, Palamau]

¶5

State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu Daltonganj

¶6

.… Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Rajesh Pandey, S/o- Ram Gahan Pandey

¶9

Chandrashekhar Pandey S/o Ram Gahan Pandey

¶10

Ram Gahan Pandey S/o Late Mukutdhari Pandey

¶11

Pushpa Devi W/o Chandrashekhar Pandey

¶12

Manju Devi W/o Shatrughan Duby

¶13

All resident of Mohalla: Nawatoli, Police Station: Daltonganj, Post Office: Daltonganj, District: Palamu .... Respondents

¶14

---- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---For the Appellant : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. For the Respondents : Ms. Priyanka Agrawal, Adv. : Ms. Sonal Pandey, Adv.

¶15

09/07.04.2026

¶16

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶17

The present acquittal appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal dated 09.08.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Daltonganj, Palamau in Cr. Appeal No.88 of 2006, arising out of Daltonganj Town P.S. Case No.45 of 1999, G.R. No.189 of 1999, whereby and whereunder the accused persons were acquitted for the charges under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act vide judgment dated 31.08.2006 passed by the C.J.M., Palamau.

¶18

The present criminal case has put into motion by lodging an F.I.R. being Sadar P.S. Case No.45 of 1999 for the offence under Sections 498(A)/ 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶19

The F.I.R. has been lodged on the written report of the informant, namely, Kamakhya Narayan Dwivedi. The brief fact of the case is that his daughter, Mira Kumari, was married to the accused Rajesh Pandey in July, 1997. After the marriage, she went to her matrimonial home and, after staying there for a few days, her in-laws began taunting her and started demanding refrigerator, VCR, and color television as dowry. When she stated that her father was not financially well-off, they started subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty and even denied her food. Upon receiving this information, the informant visited several times and

¶20

2026:JHHC:9729

¶21

attempted for reconciliation. The victim went her matrimonial home on 03.11.1998, but when no news was received, Vikas Kumar (son of the informant’s brother-inlaw) went to her matrimonial home on 25 February 1999. There, he was not allowed to meet her, and in his presence, the in-laws abused and assaulted her while reiterating their dowry demands.

¶22

After learning all these facts, the informant lodged a case at the police station. Upon investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons. Since Section 307 IPC had initially been added, the case was committed to the Sessions Court. However, as no case under Section 307 of IPC was found at the stage of charge, the matter was sent back to the Court under Section 228 of the IPC.

¶23

Charges were framed and read over to the accused, who denied the same and claimed to be tried.

¶24

To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether six witnesses have been examined.

¶25

P.W.-1, Kavi Sharma

¶26

P.W.-2, Kamakhya Narayan Dewedi (Informant)

¶27

P.W.-3, Vikash Kumar Pandey (Nephew of the informant)

¶28

P.W.-4, Mira Pandey (The victim lady)

¶29

P.W.-5, Baban Tiwari (Villager)

¶30

P.W.-6, Shyam Narayan Dubey (Villager)

¶31

Exhibit-1 is the formal F.I.R. which has been proved by the informant.

¶32

Exhibit-2 is the conciliation between the parties dated 03.04.1999 on

¶33

which the signature of the victim has been proved.

¶34

Exhibit-3 is the statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim.

¶35

The deposition of the prosecution witnesses are as follows:- P.W.-1, Kavi Sharma and P.W.-5 Baban Tiwary , are the co-villagers and hearsay witnesses. They have deposed that they came to know about the incident from the informant and his family members.

¶36

P.W.-2, Kamakhya Narayan Dwivedi , who is the informant and father of the victim. In his examination-in-chief, he has supported the prosecution case. He stated that he was informed by his daughter through her letters about the assault. He further deposed that a panchayati was held in this regard, but despite that, his daughter continued to be maltreated. He also stated that when his daughter was driven out of her matrimonial home on 26.02.1999 after being assaulted, the case was lodged before the police. The written statement of this witness has been proved by him and marked as Exhibit-1. He has denied the suggestion

¶37

¶38

Acq. Appeal No.26 of 2007

¶39

2026:JHHC:9729

¶40

regarding transfer of ownership of land and settlement of the matter through conciliation.

¶41

P.W.-3, Vikas Kumar , is the nephew of the informant. He stated that he came to know about the incident from the informant and the victim. During his examination-in-chief, he further deposed that when he visited the victim’s matrimonial home, she was being assaulted and he himself was abused and driven out from there. However, he admitted that he did not saw any injury marks on her body.

¶42

P.W.-4, Meera Pandey , is the victim. In her examination, she stated that after her marriage, she went to her matrimonial home, where after some time her in-laws started demanding dowry items such as a colour television and a refrigerator. She informed her father about these demands and refused to fulfil them.

¶43

She further deposed that her in-laws later demanded ₹50,000 and 5 acres of land and threatened her for non-fulfilment of the same. She also alleged that she was regularly assaulted by her in-laws, after which she returned to her parental home with her mother and narrated the entire incident to her parents.

¶44

She stated that after a conciliation, she went back to her matrimonial home, but the behaviour of her in-laws became more aggressive, and she was not allowed to visit anyone. She has proved the conciliation, which has been marked as Exhibit-2. Her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been marked as Exhibit-3.

¶45

In paragraph 13 of her examination, she stated that she does not remember the specific dates of the assaults as the same occurred regularly. She also stated that she does not remember whether any bleeding occurred due to the assaults. She has denied the suggestion that her father wanted to keep her husband as a “ghar jamai.”

¶46

P.W.-6, Shyam Narayan Dubey , is a co-villager and brother of the informant. He stated that he came to know about the incident from the family members. He further deposed that he does not remember the date of the incident.

¶47

The trial court after evaluating the evidence has convicted the accused persons under Section 498A of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶48

Against the above conviction, an appeal has been filed being Appeal No.88 of 2006.

¶49

¶50

Acq. Appeal No.26 of 2007

¶51

2026:JHHC:9729

¶52

The appellate court observed that the dispute arose due to growing bitterness between the parties. The informant, who has seven daughters and no son, admitted that the victim (his third daughter) continues to live at her parental home, unlike his other married daughters.

¶53

It was argued that the victim was unwilling to live in her matrimonial home and that the informant pressurized the accused husband, Rajesh Pandey, to live as a “ghar jamai” and pay ₹5,000 per month. Upon his refusal, hostility developed, and the present case was allegedly filed with false accusations of dowry harassment. Further, evidence shows that although the marriage took place in the year 1997, the victim stayed at her matrimonial home and repeatedly returned to her parental home, eventually staying there permanently from November 1999.

¶54

It further observed that the case was instituted to pressurize the accused, arising out of personal disputes rather than genuine allegations, which is also supported by the defence evidence on record.

¶55

The Appellate Court has passed the judgment of acquittal mainly on following grounds:-

¶56

i. There is acceptance by the victim that there was an agreement between the parties and the basis of agreement was division of property.

¶57

ii. The deposition of the victim clearly suggests that she was inclined to live separately with her husband; however, there was also a desire that the husband should reside as a ghar jamai . This may be the reason for false implication of the entire family members including nanad also.

¶58

Against the said judgment of acquittal, the present case has been filed by the State and the court vide order dated 29.02.2008 has ordered that no leave to appeal is required and as such the present appeal has been finally being heard today.

¶59

Learned counsel for the State has assailed the judgment of acquittal mainly on the ground that there is sufficient evidence that there was demand of dowry and harassment and as such ingredients of Section 498A of IPC as well as Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are present and in such scenario, judgment of acquittal is not sustainable.

¶60

On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused has supported the judgment of acquittal and it has been submitted that:

¶61

i. There was compromise between the parties and that is a sufficient ground for acquittal as it is a family dispute.

¶62

¶63

Acq. Appeal No.26 of 2007

¶64

2026:JHHC:9729

¶65

ii. Admittedly, there was a case and counter case and there was agreement for partition of the property.

¶66

iii. The main dispute between the parties was that the father-inlaw has desired that the husband should reside in his in-laws’ house as a ghar jamai .

¶67

This fact has been properly appreciated by the appellate court and has found that false implication cannot be ruled out especially in view of the fact that the entire family members has been roped in including the married nanad .

¶68

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, this Court finds that:

¶69

i. The trial court has not dealt with the defence put in cross by the accused persons and also the exhibit marked as agreement between the parties.

¶70

ii. The appellate court has appreciated the evidence in its true prospective considering the defence put by the accused persons and also the fact that the entire family members have been made accused.

¶71

iii. Although, there is a statement that bleeding injury has been sustained by the alleged victim/wife and she has got treated the same also but no such injury report has been brought on record.

¶72

Thus this Court finds that the order of acquittal is a well-reasoned order and has been passed after considering the entire evidence brought on record.

¶73

In view of above discussion, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal dated 09.08.2007 passed in Cr. Appeal No.88 of 2006, arising out of Daltonganj Town P.S. Case No.45 of 1999, G.R. No.189 of 1999 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Daltonganj, Palamau. Accordingly, the present acquittal appeal is, hereby, dismissed.

¶74

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶75

The Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi Dated: 07^th April, 2026 Shahid/NAFR Uploaded on 16.04.2026

¶76

¶77

Acq. Appeal No.26 of 2007

State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner Pal v. Rajesh Pandey And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner Pal v. Rajesh Pandey And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand

Surendra Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jilani Khan Vs State of Jharkhand

Juba Beba Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Swapan Kumar Sinha Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sarjit Kaur Vs the State of Jharkhand And Ors.