Sabnam Bano Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

2026:JHHC:13515

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Revision No. 385 of 2019

¶4

---------

¶5

Sabnam Bano @ Khatoon, aged about 33 years, wife of Samshad Alam, D/o-Abdul Gaffar, resident of village- Pelawal, P.O- Pelawal, P.S.Katkamsandi, District-Hazaribagh. At present, resident of villageDeochanda, P.S.+P.S. Barhi, District-Hazaribagh (Jharkhand)

¶6

……Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand

¶9

Md. Samshad Alam, S/o-Yakub Alam

¶10

Yakub Alam, S/o-Safar Ali Mian

¶11

Jaitun Khatoon, W/o-Yakub Alam All resident of village-Pelawal, P.O. and P.S.-Katkamsandi, DistrictHazaribagh (Jharkhand) …. Opp. Parties

¶12

---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Asif Khan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, A.P.P. For the O.P. Nos.2-4 : Mr. Shailendra Jit, Advocate

¶13

--------PRESENT

¶14

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

¶15

-----------

¶16

CAV On 23/03/2026 Pronounce On 06/05/2026

¶17

Heard Md. Asif Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. assisted with Mr. Shailednra Jit, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.2-4.

¶18

The instant criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner(complainant) challenging the order of acquittal passed in Complaint Case No.1342 of 2008 passed by J.M. 1^st Class, Hazaribagh and upheld in Cr. Appeal No.72 of 2018 by learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh vide order dated 08.01.2019 for the offence under section 498-A of IPC.

¶19

Factual Matrix

¶20

2026:JHHC:13515

¶21

Factual matrix of this case is that the complainant (petitioner) is legally married wife of opposite party No.2, Md. Samshad Alam, which was solemnized in accordance with Muslim Rites and Customs on 04.06.2000 at Deochanda, P.S.-Barhi, DistrictHazaribagh. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, the father of the complainant had presented household articles worth Rs.65,000/- apart from cash of Rs.45,000/- to the bridegroom. The complainant joined her matrimonial home and resided there peacefully about three years and also blessed with a girl child in the year 2003, namely Khusbhoo Rani. It is alleged that just after birth of Khushboo Rani, the conduct and behaviour of her husband and other family members became rude towards the complainant and she was frequently abused and assaulted by her husband and was also physically assaulted with fists and slaps. It is further alleged that the physical and mental torture was persistent at the hands of the husband of the complainant and her husband also started demanding of Rs.50,000/- and one colour T.V. as additional dowry and subjected her to physical and mental torture. She was threatened to be killed by setting her on ablaze. It is further alleged that due to poverty, the father of the complainant could not fulfill the aforesaid demand, then her

¶22

Cr. Rev. No.385 of 2019

¶23

2

¶24

2026:JHHC:13515

¶25

husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law got enraged and annoyed and she was assaulted by her sister-in-law, Tabassum Parween by legs and fists. It is further alleged that in the year 2006, the petitioner again gave birth to a female child namely Muskaan. Thereafter, her in-laws and husband accelerated the assault and torture to the complainant. It is further alleged that in the year 2007, the complainant’s husband went to Nagpur in search of some work for mason but did not return. On 20.08.2008, the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant drove her out from the matrimonial home after assaulting her mercilessly and her jewelry and other ornament were also snatched and kept by her in-laws. The complainant went to police station along with her father to lodge a case on 22.08.2008 and 27.08.2008 but no action was taken by the police then the present complaint was filed on 28.08.2008.

¶26

Learned trial court after conducting the enquiry issued summons against opposite party Nos.2 to 4, who appeared and faced trial.

¶27

In course of trial, altogether 5 witnesses were examined by the complainant including herself.

¶28

C.W.1- Abdul Gafoor

¶29

C.W.2 - Mumtaz Hussain

¶30

Cr. Rev. No.385 of 2019

¶31

3

¶32

2026:JHHC:13515

¶33

C.W.3- Abdul Jabar

¶34

C.W.4 -Khushnara Bano

¶35

C.W.5 -Sabnam Bano (complainant)

¶36

After conclusion of complainant’s evidence, the statement of accused persons were recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. The case of the defence is denial from occurrence and false implication. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence.

¶37

Learned trial court after evaluating the evidence of the witnesses examined by the complainant arrived at conclusion that no offence under section 498-A of IPC has been conclusively proved against the accused persons, hence, acquitted them from charge under section 498-A of IPC. The complainant had filed the criminal appeal assailing the order passed by learned trial court, which was also dismissed by upholding the judgment and order passed by learned trial court, which has been assailed in this criminal revision.

¶38

Submission on behalf of Petitioner

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned trial court has ignored the substantive piece of evidence depicted in the testimony of the complainant, who is sufferer of the crime and only on the basis of some minor discrepancies and contradictions

¶40

4

¶41

2026:JHHC:13515

¶42

disbelieved her testimony. Learned appellate court has also failed to re-appreciate the evidence led during the trial and dismissed the appeal in mechanical manner. It is further submitted that the complainant has specifically proved that just after birth of first girl child, she was abused and assaulted for giving birth a female child, which was accelerated by birth of second female child. It is also proved that she was assaulted by her husband by fists and legs and also harassed mentally and physically as a result of which her life in matrimonial home became miserable. Not only this, the complainant has also proved that her husband and inlaws also started demanding of Rs.50,000/- cash and colour T.V. as dowry after birth of girl child. All these vital facts have been ignored from consideration from both courts below. Ultimately, the complainant was driven out from her matrimonial home in the year 2008. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order are absolutely illegal, improper and incorrect and based upon extraneous facts. As such, the impugned judgment of acquittal is liable to be set aside, allowing this criminal revision.

¶43

Submission on behalf of State as well as Informant

¶44

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. assisted by learned counsel appearing for opposite party Nos.2 to 4 has opposed the

¶45

Cr. Rev. No.385 of 2019

¶46

5

¶47

2026:JHHC:13515

¶48

aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and defended the impugned judgment on merits.

¶49

Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-

¶50

10.I have gone through the judgments of court below in the light of rival contentions of respective parties.

¶51

11.It appears that the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court have held that since the solemnization of marriage in the year 2003 to 2008 until the complainant returned to her parental home and gave birth of two female child, in that period, no complaint of any kind was ever made by the complainant against her husband or in-laws. Admittedly, her husband has left the house for job in the year 2007 and after 1½ years, the complainant returned to her parental home. The complainant all along resided at her matrimonial home under some wear and tear of life, which cannot be categorized as cruelty as defined under section 498-A of IPC. It is trite that the revisional court cannot re-appreciate the evidence led during trial sitting as an appellate court rather it is confined to interfere with the impugned judgment/orders touching the legality, proprietary and correctness of such judgment/final orders.

¶52

Cr. Rev. No.385 of 2019

¶53

6

¶54

2026:JHHC:13515

¶55

12.In the instant revision, learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to impress upon the court to re-evaluate the evidence adduced by prosecution during trial and no serious error of law in the impugned judgment has been pointed out calling for any interference.

¶56

13.In my considered view, the concurrent findings of the facts have attained the finality and requires no interference. Therefore, I do not find any merits in this criminal revision, which stands dismissed .

¶57