Patna High Court
Chhote Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 3 March, 2025
Author: Jitendra Kumar
Bench: Jitendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.605 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-112 Year-2002 Thana- HARNAUT District- Nalanda
======================================================
Chhote Singh S/o Late Lakha Singh, Resident of Village- Kalyan Bigha, P.S.-
Harnaut, District- Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Renu Devi W/o Chhote Singh, Resident of Village- Kalayan Bigha, P.S.-
Harnaut, District- Nalanda.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Ms. Kumari Sujata Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaurasia, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 03-03-2025
The present revision petition has been preferred by
the petitioner against the impugned judgment and order of
sentence dated 02.02.2019, passed by learned Sessions Court in
Cr. Appeal No. 70 of 2016, whereby the learned Sessions Court
has upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III,
Biharsharif in G.R. No. 972 of 2002 corresponding to Harnaut P.S.
Case No. 112 of 2002, bearing trial no. 1702 of 2016, whereby the
sole accused was found guilty under Section 498(A) and was
acquitted of charge under Section 494 of IPC and he was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under
Section 498(A) and also awarded fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in case of
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.605 of 2019 dt.03-03-2025
default to pay the fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for
15 days.
2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
present case.
4. He further submits that as per the best case of the
prosecution, subsequent to the death of the son of petitioner and
informant / opposite party no. 2, the petitioner remarried another
lady for the sake of having a son because petitioner's first wife
was sterilized. Subsequent to the second marriage, the first wife /
opposite party no. 2 was subjected to cruelty. The specific
allegation is that kerosene oil was sprinkled upon the informant /
opposite party no. 2 in the kitchen and on other articles, but the
moment the accused / petitioner was going to lit the fire, the
daughter of informant / opposite party no. 2 and the petitioner
came and he could not set fire to the body of his wife.
5. He further submits that learned Trial Court has
already acquitted the petitioner of charge under Section 494 of IPC
and going by the allegation and evidence adduced in support of the
allegation for setting fire to the informant / opposite party no. 2,
the alleged offence is not completed and hence, it could be at most
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.605 of 2019 dt.03-03-2025
said to be preparation for committing the offence of setting fire to
the informant and it goes without saying that any preparation for
committing offence is not punishable. Hence, even section 498(A)
of IPC is not made out against the petitioner.
6. He further refers to the impugned judgment and
submits that learned Trial Court has not given any finding of the
facts which would constitute offence under Section 498(A) of IPC.
Without showing the fulfillment of the alleged offence under
Section 498(A) of IPC, both learned Appellate Court and learned
Trial Court have found the petitioner guilty under Section 498(A)
of IPC. Even reasons for such findings are not assigned. Hence,
impugned judgment is not sustainable and petitioner is liable to be
acquitted of the charge.
7. However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the State submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the
impugned judgment and the present petition is liable to be
dismissed.
8. Considering the statements advanced by the parties
and perusal of materials available on record, I find that petitioner
is already acquitted of the charge under Section 494 of IPC by the
Trial Court and that has not been challenged by the informant.
9. As for charge under Section 498(A) of IPC against
the petitioner, I find that as per the allegation in the FIR, there is
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.605 of 2019 dt.03-03-2025
no specific allegation of any cruelty except the allegation that
petitioner wanted to set fire to the informant / opposite party no. 2
by sprinkling kerosene oil on her, but the moment he was going to
lit the fire, the daughter of informant / petitioner came and fire
could not be set to the informant / opposite party no. 2. As such,
offence of setting fire to the informant / opposite party no. 2 is not
complete. As most, it constitutes preparation for committing the
offence of setting fire to the informant / opposite party no. 2, but
preparation for committing an offence is not punishable.
10. Hence, offence under Section 498(A) of IPC is
not made out as per the allegation and the evidence on record and
petitioner is entitled to get acquitted.
11. Impugned judgment is, therefore, not sustainable
in the eye of law and is accordingly set aside.
12. The present revision petition stands allowed.
(Jitendra Kumar, J)
Shahnawaz/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 04.03.2025
Transmission Date 04.03.2025
