Indradeo Yadav Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Toga Devi @ Urmila Devi W/o-Sri Inderdeo Yadav and D/o-Sri Shakun Marik, R/o-Village-Harkhar, Post Office-Lohari, P.S.-Chandan, Dist. Banka at present live at Village –Biswani, Post Office-Biswani, P.S.Moharnpur, Dist-Deoghar, Jharkhand ….

¶10

Opp. Parties

¶11

---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Pd. Kushwaha, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Dharmendra Kr. Maltiyar, Advocate

¶12

---------

¶13

PRESENT

¶14

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

¶15

----------- Dated:17^th June, 2026 Pronounced on 02/ 07/2026

¶16

Heard Mr. S.S. Pd. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Spl.P.P. assisted with Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Maltiyar, learned counsel on behalf of the opposite party No.2.

¶17

Instant criminal revision has been directed against the judgment dated 30.11.2016 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Cr. Appeal No.37 of 2012, whereby and whereunder learned Sessions Judge has modified the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.02.2012 passed by learned SDJM, Deoghar in P.C.R

¶18

Case No.286 of 2001, whereby the petitioner and others were held guilty for the offence under section 498A of I.P.C. and sentenced to

¶19

Cr. RevisionNo.212 of 2017

¶20

1

¶21

undergo R.I. of 3 years alongwith a fine amount of Rs.5,000/- each with default stipulation and the learned appellate court has upheld the conviction of only this petitioner and acquitted other accused persons and reduced the sentence of imprisonment from RI of 3 years to R.I. for 1 year enhancing the fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One lakh) with default stipulation.

¶22

Factual Matrix:-

¶23

Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the complainant (O.P. No.2) was married with petitioner in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs in the year, 1984. Out of their wedlock, two male child were born, who were aged about 8 years and 5 years respectively. It is alleged that after solemnization of marriage, the husband of the complainant went to Bombay in connection with his business of electricity equipments and he used to come at native village after some intervals. It is alleged that the complainant was desirous for one female child but in the month of December, 2000, her husband without her consent, has underwent a vasectomy operation under Family Planning. Thereafter, the complainant was pressurized by her husband to bring Rs.10, 000/(Rs. Ten Thousand) from her parents as an additional dowry, to which she declined due to poverty of her parents but such type of demand was persistently made by her husband and other accused. Ultimately, in the year 2000, both the children of the complainant were kept at her

¶24

2

¶25

2026:JHHC:19361

¶26

matrimonial home and she was driven out to her parental home. The husband of the complainant was also threatening to perform second marriage. In the month of April, 2001, her husband solemnized second marriage with one Ranju Devi on instigation of other accused persons. Therefore, she lodged a complaint case on 13.06.2001 before the learned CJM, Deoghar.

¶27

After conducting enquiry into the complaint petition, all the accused persons total 7 in numbers were summoned, who appeared and contested the case denying from the charges levelled against them. One of the accused, Sukhdeo Yadav was declared absconder during pendency of the trial and this case was separated.

¶28

No documentary evidence has been adduced by the prosecution. However, the complainant examined altogether 5 witnesses to substantiate her allegation, namely:-

¶29

P.W.1 -Shakun Marik

¶30

P.W.2- Andu Marik

¶31

P.W.3 -Doman Marik

¶32

P.W.4 -Urmila Devi @ Toga Devi

¶33

P.W.5- Jagdish Mahto

¶34

After completion of prosecution evidence, the defence has also examined 4 witnesses, namely, Jagdish Yadav (D.W.1), Tikeshwar Yadav (D.W.2), Umasankar Yadav (D.W.3) and Sattan Yadav (D.W.4) .

¶35

Cr. Revision No.212 of 2017

¶36

3

¶37

2026:JHHC:19361

¶38

Learned trial court after scrutinizing the evidence of witnesses examined by both parties acquitted all the accused persons from the charge under sections 494/120B of I.P.C. The accused, Chabi Mahto, Rukmani Devi, Ranju Devi and Lilwatiya Devi were also acquitted from the charge under section 498A of IPC. However, the petitioner, Indradev Yadav along with other accused, Girija Devi and Binod Kumar Yadav were held guilty and sentenced for the offence under section 498A of I.P.C.

¶39

The aforesaid convicts preferred Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2012 before learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar, wherein the appellants, Girja Devi and Binod Kumar Yadav were acquitted and their conviction was set aside. The impugned order was passed against the present petitioner to undergo R.I. for 1 year and fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rs. One lakh) for the offence under section 498A of I.P.C with default stipulation.

¶40

Submission on behalf of petitioner:-

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned judgment has strenuously argued that the main averment in complaint petition, which was lodged after 17 years of marriage is that in spite of two sons, one of 8 years and another of 5 years, the complainant desired a female child de horse to Family Planning Scheme. Further, the vasectomy operation was undergone by her husband without her consent in the year, 2000. Hence, she was annoyed with her husband. The second grievance of the

¶42

Cr. Revision No.212 of 2017

¶43

4

¶44

2026:JHHC:19361

¶45

complainant against her husband was that he solemnized second marriage with one Ranju Devi but the charge under section 494 of I.P.C. was also not proved and the petitioner was acquitted thereunder. There was general and omnibus allegation about demand of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) as additional dowry after 17 years of marriage, which has also not been proved through cogent and reliable evidence. What type of assault and torture was extended to the complainant at the hands of the petitioner has also not been proved rather learned trial court has opined that vasectomy operation of the complainant was conducted without her consent also amounts to a sin and not in the interest of society. Learned appellate court has also recorded no findings on merits of the case rather simply modified the sentence considering the pathetic situation of the complainant in spite of recording the findings that more than 20 years has been passed since the institution of the case and much water has flown in the relationship between parties and change of circumstances. It was also opined that now sending the petitioner to sustain jail custody will serve no useful purpose rather fine amount be given to the wife of the petitioner, which may provide support to her. In spite of above findings, the sentence of the petitioner was reduced from the maximum sentence of 3 years R.I. to R.I of 1 year It is further submitted that learned appellate court has also transgressed his jurisdiction because a maximum fine amount which Judicial Magistrate

¶46

Cr. Revision No.212 of 2017

¶47

5

¶48

2026:JHHC:19361

¶49

First Class may grant could not exceed Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) but learned appellate court has imposed fine of Rs.1, 00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh). It is further submitted that at the present, both the sons of petitioner i.e. elder son has attained the age of 33 years and younger son of 30 years and both sons are providing maintenance to their mother. Admittedly, for the aforesaid reasons, the complainant has never instituted any case under section 125 of Cr.P.C claiming maintenance from the petitioner. It is further submitted that a single instance of cruelty dated 1^st January, 2001 about assaulting and torturing her has been mentioned in the charge under section 498A of I.P.C. There is only one question in the statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. of the petitioner i.e. “on 01.01.2001, in village Dhanve, P.S. Chandra Mandi, District-Jamui, the petitioner and others asked Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) as dowry from the complainant and due to non-fulfillment of which, she was assaulted and tortured,” which has been denied by the petitioner. The occurrence happened at Jamui but the complaint case was lodged in Deoghar district beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court. No other instance of cruelty either saying that her husband or any other accused persons went to parental house of the complainant and she was assaulted and tortured due to repetition of demand and nonfulfillment of the same has been alleged. As such, both the courts below have committed serious error of law while appreciating the evidence in

¶50

Cr. Revision No.212 of 2017

¶51

6

¶52

2026:JHHC:19361

¶53

the light of relevant provision under section 498A of I.P.C. and arrived at wrong conclusion about the guilt of the petitioner. Therefore, in absence of proof of ingredients under section 498A of IPC against the petitioner, his conviction and sentence passed by learned trial court and upheld by learned appellate court is absolutely perverse, illegal and based upon non-consideration of the vital admissible evidence, which negate any criminal liability of the petitioner for the offence under section 498A of I.P.C. Therefore, impugned judgment passed by learned trial court as well as learned appellate court is liable to be set aside and this revision may be allowed.

¶54

Submission on behalf of State and O.P. No.2:-

¶55

10.On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P. assisted by learned counsel for opposite party No.2 have opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that learned trial court has very wisely and aptly apprised and appreciated the vidences available on record constituting the offence under section 498A of I.P.C against the petitioner and held him guilty for the aforesaid offences, which has also been affirmed by learned appellate court. There is no reason to interfere with concurrent findings of learned trial court and learned appellant court. This revision has no merits and fit to be dismissed.

¶56

Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-

¶57

Cr. Revision No.212 of 2017

¶58

7

¶59

11.I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgment passed by learned trial court as well as appellate court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side.

¶60

12.It appears that learned trial court after considering the evidence acquitted the petitioner and others for the offence under section 494/120B of I.P.C. It further appears that the complainant (P.W.4) has stated in general terms that in the year, 2000, the present petitioner and his relatives started demanding Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) from her father and due to non-fulfillment of which, she was assaulted and tortured and driven out from the matrimonial home. Thereafter, no panchyati was held and she is still residing at her parental home. The crux of the matter, which appears to be giving rise to filing of the complaint, is admitted by the complainant in her cross-examination that she was desiring a girl child but her husband and his family members without her consent got vasectomy operation of her husband, due to which, there was dispute and scuffle between husband and wife. This fact is also considered by learned trial court to be cruelty against the complainant. Learned appellate court has also not expressed anything on merits regarding as to what conduct of the present petitioner amounting to cruelty with her in the meaning of section 498A of IPC. At this juncture, it is also pertinent to observe that the father of the complainant namely, Sakun Malik has been examined as P.W.1, he has not stated

¶61

Cr. Revision No.212 of 2017

¶62

8

¶63

that any demand of Rs.10,000/-(Rs. Ten Thousand) was directly made to him by any of the accused persons rather it was disclosed to him by his daughter (complainant), who is residing at her parental home since 2 ½ years. He also admits that since the marriage of his daughter, 16 years has been elapsed and his daughter has resided at Sasural about 15 years very quite well and her husband was residing at Bombay since 10 years ago. Sometimes, his daughter was also residing at Bombay. Therefore, the demand of Rs.10,000/-(Rs. Ten Thousand) was motivated only on apprehension of the complainant about second marriage of her husband with one Ranju Devi and undergoing vasectomy operation without her consent. Although, she was desirous for a girl child.

¶64

13.In the above context and factual background of the case, both the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court has conducted serious error of law in not properly appreciating the evidence of the material witnesses, which even if taken to be true on its face value, could not constitute the ingredients of under section 498A of IPC. The charge framed against the petitioner also discloses that it does not cover either part (a) or (b) of the explanation appended to section 498A of IPC and a single instance of demand of Rs.10,000/-(Rs. Ten Thousand) was raised at Sasural (Jamui) and thereafter no persistence on behalf of the petitioner for non-fulfilling the aforesaid demand by coercing his wife in any manner. Admittedly, petitioner was working and residing usually

¶65

Cr. Revision No.212 of 2017

¶66

9

¶67

2026:JHHC:19361

¶68

at Bombay. Both sons of complainant have been grown up and maintaining their mother (complainant).

¶69

It also appears that the learned appellate court has exceeded

¶70

its jurisdiction in awarding fine amount of Rs.1 lakh. Although, the Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class can pass fine not exceeding Rs.10,000/-(Rs. Ten Thousand)

¶71

14.In view of the above discussion and reasons, I find merits in this revision. The impugned judgment appears to be perverse, illegal, beyond weight of evidence and based on improper consideration of materials available on record.

¶72

15.Accordingly, the impugned judgment passed by learned trial court as well as learned appellate court is hereby set aside and the petitioner is acquitted from the charge under section 498A of IPC. This revision is

¶73

allowed .

¶74