Jharkhand High Court
Navlal Sahu vs State Of Jharkhand on 23 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 217 of 2012
Navlal Sahu, Son of Kishun Sahu
Resident of village - Ghunsuli, P.O. Ghunsuli, P.S. Karra,
District - Khunti ... ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, Advocate
For the Opp. Party State: Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Advocate
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
12/23.06.2021 Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. P.D. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the opposite party - State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although
the learned trial court had convicted the petitioner-husband for
alleged offence under Section 494/498A of Indian Penal Code
as well as Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, but the
learned appellate court had acquitted the petitioner for offence
under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code as well as Section 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. He submits that the learned
appellate court after appreciating the materials on record, gave
a specific finding that no specific evidence was there on record
for offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He
further submits that the offence under Section 494 of Indian
Penal Code was held to be not proved beyond reasonable doubt
against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the main
cause of dispute between the petitioner and his wife was that
it was alleged that the two children were begotten by her from
third person namely Manoj Kumar and not from the accused-
husband.
4. Learned counsel submits that once the demand of dowry
could not be proved and there was acquittal under Section 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the conviction under Section
498A Indian Penal Code could not have been sustained by the
learned appellate court without there being any material to
show that the cruelty was of a grave nature and it fell within
the definition of 'cruelty' under explanation (a) of Section 498A
of Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel also submits that as the
demand of any property including dowry could not be proved,
therefore the cruelty did not fall under explanation (b) of
Section 498A of Indian penal Code.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the learned appellate court while sustaining the conviction
under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code held that since the
husband-accused had left the wife and has not been
maintaining her, this has caused cruelty and mental torture to
the informant wife. Learned counsel submits that no case for
maintenance was ever filed by the wife. He further submits that
the finding recorded by the learned appellate court was not
sufficient to sustain the conviction of the petitioner under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code as the dowry demand
was not proved and the torture to the extent referred to under
explanation (a) of Section 498A of Indian Penal Code was also
not proved. Learned counsel submits that in the aforesaid facts
and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the petitioner
under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained in
the eyes of law and the impugned appellate court judgment
confirming the conviction under Section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code calls for interference in revisional jurisdiction to
meet the ends of justice.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the
other hand, while opposing the prayer has submitted that both
the learned courts below have convicted the petitioner under
Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and accordingly, the same
does not call for any interference. However, during the course
of argument, learned counsel for the State could not dispute the
fact that the allegation regarding demand of property/dowry
was held to be not proved at the appellate stage and there is no
finding recorded by the learned appellate court regarding the
nature of cruelty that falls within the meaning of 'cruelty' under
explanation (a) to Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.
7. Arguments concluded.
8. Post this case on 28th June, 2021 for judgment.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav
