Amrendra Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand & Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 1536 Jhar

                                            1




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                             Cr. Revision No. 495 of 2012

                     Amrendra Kumar                         ...   ...     Petitioner
                                         Versus
                     The State of Jharkhand & Another ... ...            Opp. Parties
                                         ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

Through: Video Conferencing 05/25.03.2021

1. Heard Mr. Vibhor Mayank, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Jitendra Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders are perverse, in as much as, the case does not come either under explanation (a) or under explanation (b) of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

4. While referring to the impugned judgment, the learned counsel submits that there is no allegation of demand of any kind of property as such and accordingly, the applicability of explanation (b) of Section 498-A of IPC is ex-facie excluded.

But, so far as explanation (a) of Section 498-A of IPC is concerned, the conduct of the accused should be of such a nature that the same 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.

5. The learned counsel submits that there is no finding recorded by the learned courts below that the conduct was likely to drive the wife to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her limb or health. He submits that the only allegation, as it appears from the appellate court's judgment, is that the petitioner did not conduct 'gauna' (second marriage) of

the complainant and accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. He submits that there was allegation of demand of dowry, but no finding has been returned by the learned court below and after appreciating the materials on record and the petitioner was ultimately acquitted for alleged offence under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2008) 15 SCC 582 paragraphs 16 to 19 and 29, 30.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer and submits that there are consistent findings recorded by the learned courts below which may not be interfered with.

8. Arguments concluded.

9. Order is reserved.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul