Monday, 18, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Avinash Chandra Jha vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 10316 Jhar

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 10316 Jhar
Judgement Date : 11 November, 2024

Jharkhand High Court

Avinash Chandra Jha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 November, 2024

Author: Rajesh Kumar

Bench: Rajesh Kumar

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
             Cr. Revision No.1433 of 2022

    Avinash Chandra Jha, aged about 48 years, son of Late
    Baidnath Jha, resident of Village & P.O. Birsayar, P.S.
    Pandel, District Madhubani, Bihar. At present residing at
    Near Petrol Pump, Azad Nagar, Mohalla Karnibagh, P.O.
    Ashram, P.S. Kunda, District Deoghar, Jharkhand.
                                          ...... Petitioner
                         Versus
    1.    The State of Jharkhand
    2.    Siddhi Kumari Jha, wife of Avinash Chandra Jha,
          daughter of Sri Bhubhneshwar Jha, resident of
          Near Petrol Pump, Azad Nagar, Mohalla Karnibagh,
          P.O. Ashram, P.S. Kunda, District Deoghar,
          Jharkhand. At present residing at Village Kura, P.O.
          and P.S. Chitra, Sub-Division Madhupur, District
          Deoghar, Jharkhand              ...... Opp. Parties
                                  ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P

--------

               th
08/Dated: 11        November, 2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for the State.

2. In spite of valid service of notice, nobody appears on behalf of victim/ wife/ O.P. No.02.

3. The present revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 05.11.2022, passed by the court of learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Cr. Appeal No.39 of 2022, whereby the appeal, preferred by the revisionist against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.08.2022, passed by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Deoghar in P.C.R Case No.483 of 2011, whereby the revisionist was found guilty for the offence under Section 498-A of the I.P.C and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years along with fine of Rs.7,000/- with default clause, has been dismissed.

4. It appears that the parties are related by marriage, as per the Hindu rites, which has taken place in the year 2002 and they have been blessed with three children. It further appears that the wife has alleged harassment and a case has been lodged under Sections 498A and 494 of the Indian Penal

-1- Cr. Revision No.1433 of 2022 Code. The petitioner has been charged under both the sections and he has faced the trial, but he has been convicted only under Section 498A of the I.P.C and acquitted from the charges under Section 494 of the I.P.C by the trial court by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.08.2022 and accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years along with fine of Rs.7,000/- with default clause.

5. It further appears that to substantiate the charge, the prosecution has examined altogether four witnesses, but one of the independent witnesses has not turned up for the cross- examination. Several exhibits have also been brought on record.

The appellate court has also considered the entire evidence brought on record and acquitted the mother-in-law of the victim as there was no specific allegation against her, but upheld the conviction of the revisionist.

Thus, there is concurrent findings by both the courts considering the materials brought on record.

6. From perusal of the record, it appears that there are materials to substantiate the conviction so the findings, given by the courts below, cannot be termed as perverse. Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to interfere with so far as the conviction under Section 498A of the I.P.C is concerned.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist has challenged the sentencing part stating that it is excessive. No injury has been caused to the victim. There is no independent witness also. They have been blessed with three children and they are enjoying over the properties of the revisionist.

8. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, conviction of two years rigorous imprisonment is, hereby, reduced to one year.

9. With the above modification of the sentencing part, the present revision application is, hereby, disposed of.

10. Pending I.A. No.9103 of 2024 also stands disposed of.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Chandan/-

                                     -2-               Cr. Revision No.1433 of 2022
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter