Patna High Court
Abhinav Sagar vs The State Of Bihar on 17 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.96 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-773 Year-2010 Thana- MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Abhinav Sagar, Son of Raj Kumar Sagar, Resident Of Village- Mitrachauk,
P.S-. Bettiah Town, District -West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kumari Amarpali, Daughater Of Shankar Prasad, Resident Of Village-
Kanhauli Bazar, Po- Kanhayuli Via Bhuthi, Ps- Kanhauli, Dist- Sitamarhi
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Shiv Kumar Dwivedy, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP
For the Opposite Party No. 2: Smt. Durga Kumari, Advocate
Ms. Shama Akhatar, Advocate
Ms. Deepmala Kumari, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 17-04-2025
1. The petitioner was husband of the Opposite
Party No. 2. At the instance of Opposite Party No. 2 on the
basis of a complaint, the petitioner was charged with an
offence under Section 498A of the IPC. The said case was
registered as Complaint Case No. 773 of 2010, T.R. No. 769
of 2018 before the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Muzaffarpur (East). The learned Magistrate on
completion of trial found the accused/petitioner guilty for
committing offence under Section 498A of the IPC and
sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for one year with
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.96 of 2024 dt.17-04-2025
fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to pay fine, simple
imprisonment for further period of 3 months. The petitioner
challenged the said order of conviction and sentence in
Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2019. The said appeal was heard
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 18th Court at
Muzaffarpur and by his judgement and order dated 17 th of
October, 2023, the Court of appeal also affirmed the order
of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur for the offence
punishable under Section 498A of the IPC.
2. In the instant revision, the petitioner has
challenged the order of conviction and sentence,
questioning its legality, correctness and propriety.
3. It is needless to say that the revisional Court has
the jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality and
propriety of any finding, sentence ..............., recorded or
passed. When no appeal lies against the Appellate Court's
order, affirming the order of conviction and sentence passed
by the Trial Court, the aggrieved person has the statutory
right to challenge the said order of conviction and sentence
in revision. Therefore, this Court does not have any doubt
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.96 of 2024 dt.17-04-2025
as to the maintainability of the instant revision. A question
naturally comes next to consider the power and scope of the
revisional Court while dealing with a revision against the
order of conviction and sentence. Is it similar as that of
appellate power or something more or confined to lesser
jurisdiction. Law on this point is no longer res integra that
when a matter comes up in revisional jurisdiction, the
appellant has no right whatsoever beyond the right of
bringing his case into the notice of Court. It is for the Court
to interfere in exceptional cases where it seems that some
real and substantial injustice has been caused. That is the
main point which the Court has to consider. A revisional
application is not to be regarded as some sort of a second
appeal on question of law; a revision is a procedural facility
afforded to a party, but it is not a continuation of the suit,
appeal or trial, while the appeal is a statutory right
conferred on a party. When it is an application in revision,
the main question which the High Court has to consider is
whether substantial justice has been done. In the case of
appeal, on the other hand, the appellants, no doubt, are
entitled to demand an adjudication upon all questions of
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.96 of 2024 dt.17-04-2025
fact and law which they wish to raise, but in revision, the
only question is whether the High Court should interfere in
the interest of justice.
4. As a corollary to the above jurisprudence in the
criminal administration of justice with regard to the scope
of revisional application, it is held in a number of cases by
the Apex Court as well as different High Courts that in
revision, the revisional Court has no jurisdiction to
reappreciate the evidence. Of course, the revisional Court
can look into the evidence adduced during the trial only in
very exceptional cases where appreciation of evidence
appears to be absolutely perverse.
5. Bearing this age-old principals aforesaid, let me
now briefly state the fact of the case.
6. The Opposite Party No. 2 lodged a complaint
before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Muzaffarpur, alleging, inter alia that her marriage was
solemnized with the petitioner on 12th of December, 2008.
Prior to the marriage, the petitioner and his family members
demanded dowry of Rs. 4 Lakhs in cash, a motorcycle for
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.96 of 2024 dt.17-04-2025
the petitioner and a gold chain. However, on the date of
marriage, the family members of the complainant failed to
give motorcycle and a gold chain to the petitioner.
Subsequent to the marriage, the petitioner and his family
members demanded the said articles and on her failure to
bring the said articles from her parental home, she was
assaulted and tortured. Ultimately, on 18th of March, 2010,
she was driven away from her matrimonial home in single
cloth.
7. It is sufficient to hold at this stage that the
learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence. The accused
persons surrendered before the Trial Court to face the trail.
Charge under Section 498A / 504 of the IPC and Section 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act was framed against the
accused persons. In order to bring home the charge, the
complainant examined, in all, five witnesses including
herself. Some documents were exhibited on behalf of the
complainant as well as the accused/petitioner.
8. Further case of the petitioner is that he also filed
the Matrimonial Divorce Case No. 85 of 2010. The said suit
was decreed and marital tie between the petitioner and the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.96 of 2024 dt.17-04-2025
Opposite Party No. 2 was dissolved. The learned Family
Judge also directed to pay permanent alimony at the rate of
Rs. 4 Lakhs and the petitioner duly complied with the said
order. Against the decree of divorce, the Opposite Party No.
2 filed a Miscellaneous Appeal bearing No. 93 of 2015.
However, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the
said appeal affirming the judgement passed by the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court by an order dated 3 rd of May,
2023.
9. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that
the trial Court misplaced the consideration of evidence in its
correct perspective because the order of conviction and
sentence was passed on wrong appreciation of evidence.
Secondly, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the
petition of complaint was vague and omnibus. On the basis
of such vague complaint, the accused person / petitioner
cannot be held guilty for committing offence under Section
498A of the IPC. Thirdly, the learned Advocate for the
petitioner submits that even assuming that the Opposite
Party No. 2 was tortured in the matrimonial home, all kinds
of torture do not fall within the meaning of Section 498A.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.96 of 2024 dt.17-04-2025
10. In support of his contention, he brings my
attention to the definition of "cruelty" mentioned in the
explanation under Section 498A of the IPC. The definition
of cruelty is reproduced below:-
"(a) any wilful conduct which is of
such a nature as 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: or
(b) harassment of the woman where
such harassment is with a view to coercing
her or any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any property or valuable
security or is on account of failure by her or
any person related to her to meet such
demand."
11. The learned Advocate on behalf of the
petitioner next draws my attention to a supplementary
affidavit affirmed by the brother-in-law of the petitioner,
stating, inter alia, that the Opposite Party No. 2 married for
the second time after dissolution of her marriage on 1 st of
March, 2020. The second husband of the Opposite Party
No. 2 was compelled to file a suit for divorce bearing
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.96 of 2024 dt.17-04-2025
Matrimonial Case No. 55 of 2023 under Section 13 of the
Hindu Marriage Act against the Opposite Party No. 2 on the
ground of adultery and denial on the part of the Opposite
Party No. 2 to establish physical relationship with her
second husband. It is also stated in the supplementary
affidavit that the Opposite Party No. 2 committed cheating
by executing a fictitious agreement for sale with one Md.
Hasnain Ansari for selling some land at a consideration
price of Rs. 16 Lakhs. On the basis of a fard beyan
submitted by the said Md. Hasnain Ansari, Bettiah Town
P.S. Case No. 558 of 2021 for the offences punishable under
Sections 406, 420 and 506 is registered against the Opposite
Party No. 2 and her father.
12. Thus, it is contended by the learned Advocate
for the petitioner that the Opposite Party No. 2 from the
very beginning was a lady of questionable character. She
used the institution of marriage as a wings to earn illegal
money. She already managed to get Rs. 4 Lakhs as
permanent alimony from the petitioner. Again she married
for the second time and his second husband filed a suit for
divorce with serious allegation of adultery and refusal to
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.96 of 2024 dt.17-04-2025
consummate the marriage.
13. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that
both the Courts below failed to appreciate all such evidence
filed on behalf of the petitioner and wrongly appreciated the
evidence on record and passed the order of conviction and
sentence.
14. The learned Advocate on behalf of the
Opposite Party No. 2 submits that sentence of imprisonment
for one year in committing the offence under Section 498A
of the IPC is less than minimum and invites this Court to
enhance the period of imprisonment passed by the trial
Court.
15. In the petition of complaint, the Opposite
Party No. 2 as the complainant stated that her marriage was
solemnized on 12th of August, 2008. The petitioner and the
accused persons demanded a sum of Rs. 4 Lakhs, a gold
chain and a motorcycle as dowry before the marriage. From
her family, a sum of Rs. 4 Lakhs was paid but still the
petitioner went on demanding a motorcycle and a gold
chain even after marriage. When the complainant refused to
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.96 of 2024 dt.17-04-2025
bring the said articles from her parental home, she was
assaulted by the petitioner and his family members. It is not
stated specifically in the complaint or in evidence on which
date the petitioner and his family members demanded
motorcycle and gold chain. No evidence is forthcoming that
a sum of Rs. 4 Lakhs were paid before and at the time of
marriage by the family members of the Opposite Party No.
2. The complainant failed to say even a single date when
she was tortured on demand of dowry. She never was
examined by any medical practitioner after being assaulted
allegedly by the petitioner and his family members. Only it
is stated in the complaint as well as in evidence that on 18 th
of March, 2010, she was driven away from her maternal
home.
16. If the statement made in the complaint is
accepted in its face value, the Court can come to a
conclusion that the petitioner refused to maintain the
Opposite Party No. 2 and drove her away from his house on
18th of March, 2010. On the basis of this allegation, the
Opposite Party No. 2 could have filed a case under Section
125 of the Cr.P.C. under the Domestic Violence Act but in
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.96 of 2024 dt.17-04-2025
the absence of specific evidence mentioning the dates and
time regarding demand of dowry and on account of failure
to fulfill such demand, the petitioner was subjected to
torture, I have no other alternative but to hold that the
complaint suffers from vague and omnibus allegation. The
evidence on record is also not in conformity with the
complaint and no evidence was led stating the specific
incidence of torture on demand of dowry.
17. With regard to the allegation against the
Opposite Party No. 2 relating to her questionable character,
adultery and being involved in other criminal offences, this
Court thinks that the said allegation cannot be taken into
consideration by the revisional Court as the revisional Court
is not competent to consider evidence adduced against the
parties and moreover the said evidence was not brought by
the petitioner during trial of the case.
18. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of
the view that both the learned Trial Judge as well as the
Court of Appeal committed illegality and material
irregularity in appreciating the evidence and holding the
petitioner guilty for committing offence under Section 498A
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.96 of 2024 dt.17-04-2025
of the IPC.
19. On the contrary, the conduct of the Opposite
Party No. 2 is so revengeful that even after solemnization of
second marriage, she has been contesting the instant
revision with all her vigor and ability.
20. For the reasons stated above, the instant
revision is allowed.
21. The order of conviction and sentence passed
against the petitioner is set aside.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
uttam/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 21.04.2025
Transmission Date 21.04.2025
