Allowed¶59

Abhinav Sagar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC17 Apr 2025CR. REV./96/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 498A IPC conviction and sentence set aside in criminal revision for vague and omnibus dowry-cruelty allegations; scope of revisional jurisdiction — no reappreciation of evidence except where appreciation is absolutely perverse; revision maintainable against appellate affirmation of conviction; enhancement of one-year sentence sought by complainant; supplementary-affidavit allegations of opposite party's second marriage, adultery and other criminal cases held inadmissible in revision; Patna High Court, Muzaffarpur complaint case, dowry demand of motorcycle and gold chain unproved.

What did the court decide?

The instant revision is allowed; the order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner is set aside. ¶59

Abhinav Sagar Vs The State of Bihar — Domestic Violence | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The instant revision is allowed; the order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner is set aside.

¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether the revision is maintainable against the appellate court's order affirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, when no further appeal lies. +4 more

¶19

Court's answer

The revision is maintainable: when no appeal lies against the Appellate Court's order affirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the aggrieved person has the statutory right to challenge the said order of conviction and sentence in revision.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

In revisional jurisdiction the applicant has no right beyond bringing his case to the notice of the Court; interference is warranted only in exceptional cases of real and substantial injustice; a revision is a procedural facility, not a continuation of the suit, appeal or trial, and is not to be regarded as a second appeal on a question of law, unlike an appeal which is a statutory right conferring entitlement to adjudication on questions of fact and law.

¶21

Key takeaways

In revision, the revisional Court has no jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence; it can look into the evidence adduced during trial only in very exceptional cases where appreciation of evidence appears to be absolutely perverse.ratio¶24
In the absence of specific evidence mentioning dates and time of the dowry demand and of torture on failure to fulfil such demand, the complaint suffers from vague and omnibus allegations, and the evidence on record is not in conformity with the complaint.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Bibek Chaudhuri, J.), Criminal Revision No. 96 of 2024, decided 17-04-2025 — Revision against concurrent conviction under Section 498A IPC by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur (East) (Complaint Case No. 773 of 2010, T.R. No. 769 of 2018), affirmed on 17-10-2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2019 by the Additional Sessions Judge, 18th Court, Muzaffarpur — HELD: (i) revision against an appellate order affirming conviction is maintainable where no further appeal lies; (ii) in revision the Court cannot reappreciate evidence except in exceptional cases of absolutely perverse appreciation, revision being neither a second appeal nor a continuation of the trial; (iii) the complaint and evidence were vague and omnibus — no specific dates of dowry demand or torture, no proof of payment of Rs. 4 Lakhs, no medical examination of the complainant, and no specific incident of torture on dowry demand; even at face value the allegation showed only refusal to maintain and driving away, for which Section 125 Cr.P.C./Domestic Violence Act was the indicated remedy; (iv) allegations of the opposite party's remarriage, alleged adultery and other criminal cases, raised through supplementary affidavit, could not be considered as such evidence was not produced at trial and the revisional court is not competent to consider it; both courts below committed illegality and material irregularity — Revision allowed; order of conviction and sentence set aside.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.96 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-773 Year-2010 Thana- MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Muzaffarpur

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Abhinav Sagar, Son of Raj Kumar Sagar, Resident Of Village- Mitrachauk, P.S-. Bettiah Town, District -West Champaran

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Kumari Amarpali, Daughater Of Shankar Prasad, Resident Of VillageKanhauli Bazar, Po- Kanhayuli Via Bhuthi, Ps- Kanhauli, Dist- Sitamarhi

¶9

... ... Respondent/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate Mr. Shiv Kumar Dwivedy, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP For the Opposite Party No. 2: Smt. Durga Kumari, Advocate Ms. Shama Akhatar, Advocate Ms. Deepmala Kumari, Advocate

¶11

======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL JUDGMENT

¶13

Date : 17-04-2025

¶14

The petitioner was husband of the Opposite

¶15

Party No. 2. At the instance of Opposite Party No. 2 on the basis of a complaint, the petitioner was charged with an offence under Section 498A of the IPC. The said case was registered as Complaint Case No. 773 of 2010, T.R. No. 769 of 2018 before the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur (East). The learned Magistrate on completion of trial found the accused/petitioner guilty for committing offence under Section 498A of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for one year with

¶16

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.96 of 2024 dt.17-04-2025 2/12

¶17

fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to pay fine, simple imprisonment for further period of 3 months. The petitioner challenged the said order of conviction and sentence in Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2019. The said appeal was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 18^th Court at Muzaffarpur and by his judgement and order dated 17^th of October, 2023, the Court of appeal also affirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC.

¶18

In the instant revision, the petitioner has challenged the order of conviction and sentence, questioning its legality, correctness and propriety.

¶19

It is needless to say that the revisional Court has the jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality and propriety of any finding, sentence ……………, recorded or passed. When no appeal lies against the Appellate Court’s order, affirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the aggrieved person has the statutory right to challenge the said order of conviction and sentence in revision. Therefore, this Court does not have any doubt

¶20

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.96 of 2024 dt.17-04-2025 3/12

¶21

as to the maintainability of the instant revision. A question naturally comes next to consider the power and scope of the revisional Court while dealing with a revision against the order of conviction and sentence. Is it similar as that of appellate power or something more or confined to lesser jurisdiction. Law on this point is no longer res integra that when a matter comes up in revisional jurisdiction, the appellant has no right whatsoever beyond the right of bringing his case into the notice of Court. It is for the Court to interfere in exceptional cases where it seems that some real and substantial injustice has been caused. That is the main point which the Court has to consider. A revisional application is not to be regarded as some sort of a second appeal on question of law; a revision is a procedural facility afforded to a party, but it is not a continuation of the suit, appeal or trial, while the appeal is a statutory right conferred on a party. When it is an application in revision, the main question which the High Court has to consider is whether substantial justice has been done. In the case of appeal, on the other hand, the appellants, no doubt, are entitled to demand an adjudication upon all questions of

¶22

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.96 of 2024 dt.17-04-2025 4/12

¶23

fact and law which they wish to raise, but in revision, the only question is whether the High Court should interfere in the interest of justice.

¶24

As a corollary to the above jurisprudence in the criminal administration of justice with regard to the scope of revisional application, it is held in a number of cases by the Apex Court as well as different High Courts that in revision, the revisional Court has no jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence. Of course, the revisional Court can look into the evidence adduced during the trial only in very exceptional cases where appreciation of evidence appears to be absolutely perverse.

¶25

Bearing this age-old principals aforesaid, let me now briefly state the fact of the case.

¶26

The Opposite Party No. 2 lodged a complaint before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, alleging, inter alia that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on 12^th of December, 2008. Prior to the marriage, the petitioner and his family members demanded dowry of Rs. 4 Lakhs in cash, a motorcycle for

¶27

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.96 of 2024 dt.17-04-2025 5/12

¶28

the petitioner and a gold chain. However, on the date of marriage, the family members of the complainant failed to give motorcycle and a gold chain to the petitioner. Subsequent to the marriage, the petitioner and his family members demanded the said articles and on her failure to bring the said articles from her parental home, she was assaulted and tortured. Ultimately, on 18^th of March, 2010, she was driven away from her matrimonial home in single cloth.

¶29

It is sufficient to hold at this stage that the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence. The accused persons surrendered before the Trial Court to face the trail. Charge under Section 498A / 504 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was framed against the accused persons. In order to bring home the charge, the complainant examined, in all, five witnesses including herself. Some documents were exhibited on behalf of the complainant as well as the accused/petitioner.

¶30

Further case of the petitioner is that he also filed the Matrimonial Divorce Case No. 85 of 2010. The said suit was decreed and marital tie between the petitioner and the

¶31

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.96 of 2024 dt.17-04-2025 6/12

¶32

Opposite Party No. 2 was dissolved. The learned Family Judge also directed to pay permanent alimony at the rate of Rs. 4 Lakhs and the petitioner duly complied with the said order. Against the decree of divorce, the Opposite Party No. 2 filed a Miscellaneous Appeal bearing No. 93 of 2015. However, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the said appeal affirming the judgement passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court by an order dated 3^rd of May, 2023.

¶33

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the trial Court misplaced the consideration of evidence in its correct perspective because the order of conviction and sentence was passed on wrong appreciation of evidence. Secondly, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petition of complaint was vague and omnibus. On the basis of such vague complaint, the accused person / petitioner cannot be held guilty for committing offence under Section 498A of the IPC. Thirdly, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that even assuming that the Opposite Party No. 2 was tortured in the matrimonial home, all kinds of torture do not fall within the meaning of Section 498A.

¶34

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.96 of 2024 dt.17-04-2025 7/12

¶35

In support of his contention, he brings my

¶36

attention to the definition of “cruelty” mentioned in the explanation under Section 498A of the IPC. The definition of cruelty is reproduced below:-

¶37

“(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman: or

¶38

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”

¶39

The learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner next draws my attention to a supplementary affidavit affirmed by the brother-in-law of the petitioner, stating, inter alia, that the Opposite Party No. 2 married for the second time after dissolution of her marriage on 1^st of March, 2020. The second husband of the Opposite Party No. 2 was compelled to file a suit for divorce bearing

¶40

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.96 of 2024 dt.17-04-2025 8/12

¶41

Matrimonial Case No. 55 of 2023 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the Opposite Party No. 2 on the ground of adultery and denial on the part of the Opposite Party No. 2 to establish physical relationship with her second husband. It is also stated in the supplementary affidavit that the Opposite Party No. 2 committed cheating by executing a fictitious agreement for sale with one Md. Hasnain Ansari for selling some land at a consideration price of Rs. 16 Lakhs. On the basis of a fard beyan submitted by the said Md. Hasnain Ansari, Bettiah Town P.S. Case No. 558 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506 is registered against the Opposite Party No. 2 and her father.

¶42

Thus, it is contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the Opposite Party No. 2 from the very beginning was a lady of questionable character. She used the institution of marriage as a wings to earn illegal money. She already managed to get Rs. 4 Lakhs as permanent alimony from the petitioner. Again she married for the second time and his second husband filed a suit for divorce with serious allegation of adultery and refusal to

¶43

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.96 of 2024 dt.17-04-2025 9/12

¶44

consummate the marriage.

¶45

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that both the Courts below failed to appreciate all such evidence filed on behalf of the petitioner and wrongly appreciated the evidence on record and passed the order of conviction and sentence.

¶46

The learned Advocate on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 submits that sentence of imprisonment for one year in committing the offence under Section 498A of the IPC is less than minimum and invites this Court to enhance the period of imprisonment passed by the trial Court.

¶47

In the petition of complaint, the Opposite Party No. 2 as the complainant stated that her marriage was solemnized on 12^th of August, 2008. The petitioner and the accused persons demanded a sum of Rs. 4 Lakhs, a gold chain and a motorcycle as dowry before the marriage. From her family, a sum of Rs. 4 Lakhs was paid but still the petitioner went on demanding a motorcycle and a gold chain even after marriage. When the complainant refused to

¶48

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.96 of 2024 dt.17-04-2025 10/12

¶49

bring the said articles from her parental home, she was assaulted by the petitioner and his family members. It is not stated specifically in the complaint or in evidence on which date the petitioner and his family members demanded motorcycle and gold chain. No evidence is forthcoming that a sum of Rs. 4 Lakhs were paid before and at the time of marriage by the family members of the Opposite Party No. 2. The complainant failed to say even a single date when she was tortured on demand of dowry. She never was examined by any medical practitioner after being assaulted allegedly by the petitioner and his family members. Only it is stated in the complaint as well as in evidence that on 18^th of March, 2010, she was driven away from her maternal home.

¶50

If the statement made in the complaint is accepted in its face value, the Court can come to a conclusion that the petitioner refused to maintain the Opposite Party No. 2 and drove her away from his house on 18^th of March, 2010. On the basis of this allegation, the Opposite Party No. 2 could have filed a case under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. under the Domestic Violence Act but in

¶51

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.96 of 2024 dt.17-04-2025 11/12

¶52

the absence of specific evidence mentioning the dates and time regarding demand of dowry and on account of failure to fulfill such demand, the petitioner was subjected to torture, I have no other alternative but to hold that the complaint suffers from vague and omnibus allegation. The evidence on record is also not in conformity with the complaint and no evidence was led stating the specific incidence of torture on demand of dowry.

¶53

With regard to the allegation against the Opposite Party No. 2 relating to her questionable character, adultery and being involved in other criminal offences, this Court thinks that the said allegation cannot be taken into consideration by the revisional Court as the revisional Court is not competent to consider evidence adduced against the parties and moreover the said evidence was not brought by the petitioner during trial of the case.

¶54

For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that both the learned Trial Judge as well as the Court of Appeal committed illegality and material irregularity in appreciating the evidence and holding the petitioner guilty for committing offence under Section 498A

¶55

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.96 of 2024 dt.17-04-2025 12/12

¶56

of the IPC.

¶57

On the contrary, the conduct of the Opposite Party No. 2 is so revengeful that even after solemnization of second marriage, she has been contesting the instant revision with all her vigor and ability.

¶58

For the reasons stated above, the instant revision is allowed.

¶59

The order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner is set aside.

¶60

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)

¶61

uttam/-

¶62

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	N/A
Uploading Date	21.04.2025
Transmission Date	21.04.2025

Issues for consideration

5 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the revision is maintainable against the appellate court's order affirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, when no further appeal lies.¶19
The court held
The revision is maintainable: when no appeal lies against the Appellate Court's order affirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the aggrieved person has the statutory right to challenge the said order of conviction and sentence in revision.ratio¶19
2.
What is the power and scope of the revisional Court in a revision against conviction and sentence — in particular, whether it can reappreciate the evidence like an appellate court.¶24
The court held
In revisional jurisdiction the applicant has no right beyond bringing his case to the notice of the Court; interference is warranted only in exceptional cases of real and substantial injustice; a revision is a procedural facility, not a continuation of the suit, appeal or trial, and is not to be regarded as a second appeal on a question of law, unlike an appeal which is a statutory right conferring entitlement to adjudication on questions of fact and law.ratio¶21
3.
Whether the conviction under Section 498A IPC was legally sustainable, given the petitioner's contention that the complaint was vague and omnibus and the evidence was wrongly appreciated by both courts below.¶52
The court held
In the absence of specific evidence mentioning dates and time of the dowry demand and of torture on failure to fulfil such demand, the complaint suffers from vague and omnibus allegations, and the evidence on record is not in conformity with the complaint.ratio¶52
4.
Whether allegations made via supplementary affidavit regarding Opposite Party No. 2's questionable character, alleged adultery and involvement in other criminal offences could be taken into consideration by the revisional Court.¶53
The court held
Allegations against Opposite Party No. 2 relating to her questionable character, adultery and involvement in other criminal offences (including the subsequent matrimonial case and police case surfaced through supplementary affidavit) cannot be taken into consideration by the revisional Court, which is not competent to consider evidence adduced against the parties, and moreover such evidence was not brought by the petitioner during trial.ratio¶53
5.
Whether the sentence of imprisonment for one year under Section 498A IPC, being contended to be less than the minimum, should be enhanced at the instance of Opposite Party No. 2.¶46

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and order dated 17-10-2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2019 whereby the Court of appeal (learned Additional Sessions Judge, 18th Court, Muzaffarpur) affirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC.¶17
Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, 18th Court, Muzaffarpur · 17-10-2023
Prior proceeding
On the complaint of Opposite Party No. 2, case registered as Complaint Case No. 773 of 2010, T.R. No. 769 of 2018 before the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur (East); petitioner charged with offence under Section 498A IPC.¶15
Prior proceeding
Charge framed under Section 498A / 504 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; complainant examined in all five witnesses including herself; documents exhibited on behalf of complainant as well as accused.¶29
Prior proceeding
Learned Magistrate, on completion of trial, found the accused/petitioner guilty under Section 498A IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for a further period of 3 months.¶17
Prior proceeding
Petitioner challenged the order of conviction and sentence in Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2019 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 18th Court, Muzaffarpur.¶17
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed Matrimonial Divorce Case No. 85 of 2010; the suit was decreed and the marital tie between the petitioner and Opposite Party No. 2 was dissolved.¶30
Prior proceeding
Learned Family Judge directed payment of permanent alimony at the rate of Rs. 4 Lakhs; the petitioner duly complied with the said order.¶32
Prior proceeding
Opposite Party No. 2 filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 93 of 2015 against the divorce decree; a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal on 03-05-2023, affirming the judgment of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court.¶32
Prior proceeding
As stated in a supplementary affidavit affirmed by the petitioner's brother-in-law, Opposite Party No. 2 married a second time on 01-03-2020 and her second husband filed Matrimonial Case No. 55 of 2023 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging adultery and denial of physical relationship.¶41
Prior proceeding
As stated in the supplementary affidavit, on a fard beyan of Md. Hasnain Ansari alleging cheating through a fictitious agreement for sale of land for Rs. 16 Lakhs, Bettiah Town P.S. Case No. 558 of 2021 under Sections 406, 420 and 506 was registered against Opposite Party No. 2 and her father.¶41

Abhinav Sagar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhinav Sagar v. The State of Bihar

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

Sapandeo Singh @ Sapandeo Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Kshitij Bhardwaj @ Sonu Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Jagdish Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Pawan Kumar Singh @ Sonu Kumar Singh @ Pawan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Imran Mian @ Imran Alam Vs The State of Bihar

Karan Rajak Vs The State of Bihar