Ashok Kumar Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 1223 Jhar

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                  Cr. Rev. No. 873 of 2012

    Ashok Kumar Mahto                          ...    ...     Petitioner
                             Versus
    The State of Jharkhand
                                   ...       ...       Opposite Party

                           With
                  Cr. Rev. No. 875 of 2012

    Raj Kumar Mahto                            ...    ...     Petitioner
                           Versus
    The State of Jharkhand      ...          ...       Opposite Party

                            With
                  Cr. Rev. No. 1039 of 2012

    Sukhlal Mahto                              ...    ...     Petitioner
                             Versus
    State of Jharkhand            ...        ...       Opposite Party

                            With
                  Cr. Rev. No. 1049 of 2012

    Udasi Mahtain                              ...    ...     Petitioner
                           Versus
    The State of Jharkhand      ...          ...       Opposite Party

                            With
                   Cr. Rev. No. 86 of 2013

    Bishwanath Mahto                           ...    ...     Petitioner
                           Versus
    The State of Jharkhand      ...          ...       Opposite Party

                             ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner (s) : Mr. N.K. Sahani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, Advocate (In Cr. Rev. No. 873 of 2012) Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Advocate (In Cr. Rev. No. 875 of 2012) Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, Advocate (In Cr. Rev. No. 1039 of 2012) Mr. Tapas Roy, Advocate (In Cr. Rev. No. 1049 of 2012) Md. Hatim, Advocate (In Cr. Rev. No. 86 of 2013)

---

Through Video Conferencing

---

04/10.03.2021 Heard Mr. N.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the cases.

2. Heard Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, Mr. Tapas Roy, Md. Hatim, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the State in the respective criminal revision applications.

3. Leaned counsel for the petitioners submits that Ashok Kumar Mahto and Bishwanath Mahto were brother in laws, Udashi Mahtain and Sukhlal Mahto were mother-in-law and father-in-law respectively. Raj Kumar Mahto was the husband. The learned counsel submits that although the age of the petitioners have not been mentioned in the impugned judgments but their age is reflecting from their statement made under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and in the month of January, 2015, when the statement of mother-in-law and father-in-law were recorded, they were 50 years and 54 years of age respectively and accordingly, their present age is 66 years and 70 years respectively. The learned counsel further submits that so far as the brother in laws and mother-in-law are concerned, there are no specific allegations against them.

4. However, during the course of argument, it is not in dispute that the minimum sentence for offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is 6 months. It also transpired during the course of hearing that the complainant of the case has already expired and this fact has been recorded in the appellate court's judgment.

5. Post this case for further hearing on 15.03.2021.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Pankaj/Saurav