Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam
2025 Latest Caselaw 4875 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam on 21 May, 2025

Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia

Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia

                                                                                  Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010219572012




                                                                           2025:GAU-AS:6347

                           THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                            Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./360/2012

           RAMESH SAHU
           S/O SRI MAHILAL SAHU R/O SALONAH P.S. SAMAGURI, DIST. NAGAON,
           ASSAM,

           VERSUS

           THE STATE OF ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S BORTHAKUR, MR.R HAZARIKA,MR.J ROY,MR.S
SARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, ,,

:: PRESENT ::

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

For the Petitioner : Mr. J. Roy, Senior Advocate.

Mr. R. Hazarika, Advocate.

                   For the Respondents         :             Mr. B. Sarma,
                                                             Addl. P.P., Assam.

                   Date of Hearing                 :         09.05.2025.
                   Date of Judgment                :         21.05.2025.


                           JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

Heard Mr. J. Roy, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Hazarika, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Addl. Public Page No.# 2/6

Prosecutor, Assam.

2. This is an application under Section 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) challenging the judgment and order dated 10.05.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kaliabor, Nagaon, in G.R. case No.121/2009 affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagaon, Assam in Criminal Appeal No.16/2011.

3. On 22.03.2009, late Anima Tanti, being the wife of the present petitioner had lodged an FIR before police alleging that after her marriage with him, he wanted her to bring money from the house of her parents. On that issue, the petitioner allegedly physically assaulted his wife. On 02.02.2009, he drove his wife out of the house. Thereafter, on 21.03.2009, she along with her mother had gone to the house of the petitioner. On that day also, she was assaulted by the petitioner. At the time of filing of the FIR, the informant wife was residing in the house of her parents.

4. On conclusion of investigation, police filed the charge sheet under Section 498-A and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner. The charges were framed accordingly, to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty.

5. During the trial of the case, the prosecution side examined 6(six) witnesses. The appellant examined himself as his defence witness.

6. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court convicted the petitioner under Sections 323 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

7. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the court of Sessions at Nagaon. The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

9. A revisional court normally does not go into the evidence. A revisional court relies upon jurisdictional error committed by sub-ordinate courts while considering a revision petition. But in this case, I have decided to go through the evidence because it is Page No.# 3/6

necessary for disposal of the criminal petition.

10. The first prosecution witness is the informant late Anima Tanti who died in the year 2023. She has stated in her evidence that the petitioner used to demand money from her and when she could not give him money, he used to physically assault her.

11. In her cross-examination, she has stated that on one occasion her parents dropped her in the house of the petitioner. According to the informant, the petitioner often used to remain absent from his house. He sometimes used to stay in the house of his aunt. On 21.03.2009, some unknown persons had assaulted the present petitioner.

12. The second prosecution witness is the mother of the informant. She has stated in her evidence that the petitioner used to assault her daughter for want of money and therefore, she came back to her house. She further stated that when she took her daughter to the house of the petitioner, then the petitioner assaulted her daughter as well as her also.

13. In her cross-examination, PW-2 has stated that her daughter was given in marriage to the petitioner by performing religious rituals.

14. The third prosecution witness is an acquaintance of the informant. He stated that the petitioner married the informant on 07.12.2008. This witness has quoted the informant as saying to him that the petitioner assaulted her for want of dowry. He also came to know from her that on 02.02.2009, the petitioner assaulted the informant on demand of dowry and drove her out his house on that day. He also came to know from the informant that when her mother went to the house of the petitioner, he assaulted both of them.

15. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the petitioner and the informant lived as husband and wife after their marriage. He had heard that the petitioner used to assault his wife. This witness had claimed that he had seen the petitioner slapping his wife.

Page No.# 4/6

16. The fourth prosecution witness is the father of the informant. He has stated in his evidence that the petitioner demanded money from his daughter and drove her out of the house after assaulting her.

17. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that the marriage of his daughter was solemnized on 07.12.2008 by performing religious rituals. He has further stated that his daughter told him that she was assaulted by the petitioner.

18. The fifth prosecution witness is an acquaintance of the informant. He also claimed that the marriage of the informant was solemnized on 07.12.2008. According to this witness, the informant lived in her matrimonial house for a period of about two months and after that, she started to live in the house of her parents. This witness has stated that the petitioner demanded money from the informant and drove her out of the house after assaulting her.

19. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he had attended the marriage ceremony of the informant and the petitioner.

20. The sixth prosecution witness is the Police Investigating Officer and he spoke about the investigation.

21. In his evidence, the petitioner denied his marriage with the informant. He has claimed that he was married to Lakshmi Sahu whom he married in the year 2009 after an engagement in the year 2007.

22. According to the petitioner, he knew the informant and on one occasion, the informant came to his house with her parents and all of them stayed in his house for about 10 days. The petitioner has admitted that on 21.03.2009, some persons had assaulted him. The petitioner denied that he had ever demanded any money from the informant.

23. In his cross-examination, the petitioner has stated that Anima Tanti was his neighbour and he knew her from the childhood. The petitioner has stated that he Page No.# 5/6

never had any relationship with the informant, except maintaining a cordial relationship with her. When the informant came to reside in his house, his parents treated her well. He says that at that time, he was not married to Lakshmi Sahu.

24. The petitioner has stated that there was a village meeting on the issue that the informant claimed that the petitioner was maintaining love-affair with her and later on cheated her.

25. I have carefully gone through the prosecution evidence as well as the defence evidence.

26. This is a case where there is a claim that the petitioner never married the informant. In that case, the prosecution had a duty to prove the marriage between the petitioner and the informant beyond all reasonable doubt. That was not done.

27. Only the third and the fifth prosecution witnesses, who are not relatives of the informant, have supported the claim that there was a marriage between the petitioner and the informant and the said marriage was performed according to the religious rituals.

28. At this stage, it can be held with mere preponderance of evidence that the petitioner was married to the informant.

29. So far as the allegation of demand of dowry is concerned, it is the evidence of the informant only. Her mother and her father had heard about it from her. The PWs-3 & 5 have stated in their evidences that they had heard from the informant and her father that the petitioner used to demand dowry from the informant.

30. Now, it is clear that the informant publicised the fact that her husband used to assault her for want of money or dowry. The evidences of the witnesses namely, PW-3 and PW-5, seem to be embellished and tutored. Their evidences failed to inspire confidence.

31. The petitioner had claimed in his evidence that he married Lakshmi Sahu in the Page No.# 6/6

year 2009. In his cross-examination nothing was asked about it. His cross-examination shows that there was a village meeting, which was organized on the basis of a complainant made by the informant that the petitioner after maintaining love-affair with her, had cheated her.

32. Now, this Court is of the opinion that under the given circumstances the evidences of the informant and her parents also failed to inspire confidence. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court below erroneously oriented itself and arrived at an incorrect finding. The learned appellate court also erroneously upheld the said judgment.

33. For the aforesaid reasons, the revision petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 10.05.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kaliabor, Nagaon, in G.R. case No.121/2009 affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagaon, Assam in Criminal Appeal No.16/2011, are set aside.

34. The petitioner Ramesh Sahu is acquitted from this case.

The criminal revision petition is disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant