Jharkhand High Court
Md. Imtiyaz Ansari @ Md. Imtiyaz vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1540 of 2015
Md. Imtiyaz Ansari @ Md. Imtiyaz --- --- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Ruksana Naz --- --- Opp. Parties
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath
---
For the Petitioner: Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl.P.P
---
08 / 25.08.2023 Petitioner has filed this revision application against the judgment dated
15.09.2015, passed by Shri Mahesh Prasad Yadav, District and Additional
Sessions Judge-IV, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 06/2014, whereby and
wherein, the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dhanbad
dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 20.12.2013, passed by Sri Sachindra Birua, learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 1291/2008, whereby
and wherein, the learned Trial Court held the petitioner guilty of the offence
under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I
for two years along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the aforesaid offence. In
default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo R.I for one
month.
2. Complainant / Opposite party no. 2 - Ruksana Naz was examined as
C.W-4. She has stated that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized on
26.09.2005. Before the marriage, there was a demand of Rs. 60,000/- which
was given to the father-in-law of the complainant / opposite party no. 2. After
the marriage, there was a demand of a motorcycle. To enforce the demand, she
was tortured and ultimately, she was driven away from her matrimonial home.
In her cross-examination, she has stated that the petitioner has filed a
matrimonial suit being Title (Matrimonial) Suit No. 106/2005 with a prayer to
direct the complainant / opposite party no. 2 to resume her matrimonial
relationship. She has also stated that the petitioner has divorced her. She has
further stated that her family members had advised her to resume her
matrimonial relationship with the petitioner, but she did not accede to their
advice.
3. There is nothing in her testimony to show as to when the money was
demanded and when she was tortured to enforce this demand. Testimony of
other witnesses is on the same line that the petitioner had demanded money
and to enforce the demand, complainant / opposite party no. 2 was tortured and
ultimately, she was driven away from her matrimonial home. None of the
witnesses have given specific date on which demand was made and when she
was driven away from her matrimonial home.
4. From the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that there is general, vague and
omnibus allegation against the petitioner of demand of dowry. It further
appears that the petitioner had filed matrimonial suit with a prayer to direct the
complainant / opposite party no. 2 to resume her matrimonial relationship. It
further appears that the parties are already divorced and they are living
peacefully and separately.
5. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that learned Trial
Court has come to an erroneous finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner for
the offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable
doubt. Accordingly, the judgement of conviction and order of sentence passed
by the learned Trial Court, so affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, is set
aside.
6. This revision application is allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands
disposed of.
(Ambuj Nath, J)
Ranjeet/
