Patna High Court
Ratnesh Kumar Sinha vs The State Of Bihar on 9 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.551 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Patna
======================================================
Ratnesh Kumar Sinha, S/o- Satyadeo Narayan Sinha @ Ramjee Babu
Mohalla- Club Road, Ara, P.S. Nawada, Dist. Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Anupama Kumari @ Geeta Kumari @ Anupama Sinha D/o- Late Saryu
Prasad Srivastava, W/o- Ratnesh Kumar Sinha Mohalla- Mahesh Complex
Patthal Lane Saristabad, Ps- Gardanibagh, Dist- Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 561 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-926 Year-2004 Thana- GARDANIBAG District- Patna
======================================================
Anupama Kumari @ Geeta Kumari @ Anupama Sinha Daughter Of Late
Saryu Prasad Srivastava, Wife Of Ratnesh Kumar Sinha Resident Of Mahesh
Complex Patthal Lane Sristabad, P.S. - Gardani Bagh, District - Patna,
Presently Residing At A-801, Blu Springs Jambhulwadi Road Near Telco
Colony, Pune City, Katraj, Pune, Maharashtra
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Ratnesh Kumar Sinha, Son Of Late Satyadeo Naryan Sinha @ Ramji Babu
Resident Of Mohalla - Club Road, Ara P.S. - Nawada, District - Bhojpur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL REVISION No. 551 of 2024)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan, Advocate
Ms. Aastha Ananya, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate
(In CRIMINAL REVISION No. 561 of 2024)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Manoj, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Yogendra Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 09-05-2025
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
1. Both the revisional applications challenged
one and identical order of conviction and sentence passed
against the petitioner of Cr. Revision No. 551 of 2024.
Therefore, both the criminal revisions are disposed of by a
common judgement.
2. In Criminal Revision No. 551 of 2024, the
petitioner has challenged the correctness, legality and
propriety of an order of conviction for committing offence
under Section 498A of the IPC and consequent order of
sentence, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
3rd, Patna, in Criminal Revision No. 195 of 2017, affirming
the order of conviction, passed by the learned SDJM, Patna
in G. R. Case No. 5207 of 2004, modifying the order of
sentence by imposing rigorous imprisonment of two years
instead of rigorous imprisonment of three years, passed by
the learned SDJM, Patna, in G.R. Case No. 5207 of 2004
for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC.
3. Criminal Revision No. 561 of 2024, on the
other hand, is filed by the victim Anupama Kumari, praying
for enhancement of sentence of rigorous imprisonment,
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
which was modified and reduced by one year by the Court
of Appeal.
4. Indisputably, marriage of the Opposite Party
No. 2 in Criminal Revision No. 551 of 2024 and the
petitioner of Criminal Revision No. 561 of 2024 was
solemnized with the convict according to the Hindu Rites
and Ceremonies on 29th of November, 2002. The marriage
of the parties was mediated by one Anand Bhushan Sahai, a
distant relative of the family of the groom. During the talk
of marriage, father of the convict told the father of the bride
that as his son had been staying in Pune in the State of
Maharashtra for the purpose of his job, he would pay a sum
of Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash so that newly married couple
would purchase the household goods, like Bed, T.V, Fridge,
Sofa, Washing Machine, Dining Table etc. as wedding gift.
The father of the bride paid the said amount to Satyadeo
Narayan Sinha, father of the convict of Criminal Revision
No. 551 of 2024. As per local ritual, engagement and Tilak
was performed on 19th of May, 2002 and 26th of November,
2002 respectively and marriage was solemnized on 29th of
November, 2002. At the time of marriage, father of the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
bride gifted jewelry to his daughter worth Rs. 90,000/- and
cash of Rs. 60,000/-. Thus, he spent in all Rs. 3,00,000/- to
purchase gift items for the newly married couple, jewelry
and cash money. After marriage, the daughter of the de
facto complainant went to her matrimonial home in Ara on
30th of January, 2002. On 4th of December, 2002, newly
married couple came to the house of the informant at Patna.
Subsequently, the father of the groom and his younger son
and other relatives came to the house of the informant for
Duragaman. During lunch, the father of the groom claimed
a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- in cash as dowry from the father of
the bride and a motorcycle for the groom. The informant
told him that there was no demand or agreement for
payment of dowry in the form of cash money and
motorcycle at the time of settlement of marriage and he
expressed his inability to pay such huge amount of money
to the father of the groom. At this, father of the groom told
the de facto complainant that unless he would pay the said
amount in cash and a motorcycle, there would not be any
Duragaman. Finally, the de facto complainant gave a Titan
Wrist Watch to his son-in-law and only then Duragaman
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
was performed. After few days of marriage when the son of
the informant went to the matrimonial home of his sister
with Kalewa (Gift Items Like Sweet, Food Materials,
Cloths Etc.), the husband of her sister, his parents and his
younger brothers refused to accept Kalewa unless their
demand of dowry and motorcycle was satisfied. The
daughter of the informant told her brother that her father-in-
law took away all jewelry from her and had kept it in his
custody. The informant also alleged in the complaint that
his daughter was subjected to physical torture and mental
cruelty by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and
brother-in-law. Her husband left for Pune, leaving her alone
under the control of his parents and brothers at Ara. The
informant tried to settle the matter amicably time and again
but failed. On 12th of October, 2003, the son of the
informant went to Pune and try to persuade the son-in-law
of the informant that his wife should not be beaten up by his
matrimonial relatives on demand of dowry. On 16th of
October, 2003, the son of the informant went to Ara and
told the parents of the husband of his sister that they did not
have money at the relevant point of time and they are trying
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
to make arrangements for the same and requested them not
to harass his sister. At this, the father-in-law, mother-in-law
and brother-in-law of his sister told him to immediately
purchase steel almirah as the husband of his sister would
come to Ara from Pune. Accordingly, he purchased almirah
and delivered the same in the matrimonial home of his sister
on 28th of October, 2003.
5. On the face of repeated demands of dowry
and experiencing the harassment caused by the accused
persons upon the daughter of the informant, he somehow
arranged a sum of Rs. 45,000/- and handed over to the
father of his son-in-law. While taking the money, the father
of his son-in-law asked him to arrange for the remaining
money soon. After payment of Rs. 45,000/-, daughter of the
informant was taken to Pune by her husband. They started
living in a rented apartment in Pune. On 4 th of December,
2003, the daughter of the informant told him over phone
that her husband assaulted her very badly on demand of
dowry. He also threatened her to kill. Hearing this, the
informant and his well-wishers went to Ara to meet the
father of the husband of his daughter and again paid a sum
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
of Rs. 35,000/- to him and requested him to save his
daughter's life. On 14th of December, 2003, father-in-law of
the daughter of the informant went to Pune with the said
money. Thereafter, the son-in-law of the informant told him
to arrange for the rest money and one motorcycle at the
earliest. Hearing this, the son of the informant transferred a
sum of Rs. 6,000/- to the bank account of the brother of the
husband of the informant's daughter. On 12 th of November,
2004, the daughter of the informant and her husband came
to Ara. She was severely assaulted by her matrimonial
relatives on demand of rest amount of dowry money. They
also stopped her providing food on 14th of November, 2004.
They sent her to the house of the informant at Patna with
Dr. Anand Bhushan Sahai. Again, the informant along with
Dr. Sahai and others went to the matrimonial home of his
daughter and try to settle the dispute amicably but failed.
On 20th of November, 2004, the husband of the daughter of
the informant took her to Pune. She was being harassed at
Pune on demand of dowry. The daughter of the informant
went to Pune to settle the dispute amicably. He found his
sister in very bad health in the apartment of her husband.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
When he asked the husband of his sister about the reason of
her ill health, he threw away both the son and daughter of
the informant from his apartment and left his flat putting
lock and key. Finding no other alternative, the daughter of
the informant returned to her parental home.
6. On 30th of November, 2004, the informant
lodged a written complaint before the SHO, Gardanibagh
Police Station. On the basis of his written complaint,
Gardanibagh P.S. Case No. 926 of 2004, for the offence
punishable under Sections 379, 498A and 34 of the IPC and
Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered
against the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and
brother-in-law of the daughter of the de facto complainant.
Police took up the case for investigation. On completion of
investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against accused
persons before the learned SDJM, Patna. The case was
registered as G. R. Case No. 5207 of 2004. The charge was
framed against the Ratnesh Kumar Sinha, husband of the
daughter of the informant, Satyadeo Narayan Sinha and
Smt. Urmila Sinha, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the
wife of Ratnesh under Section 498A/34, 379 and 34 of the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
7. In order to bring home the charge against the
accused persons, prosecution examined in all six witnesses:
They are Suresh Kumar Sinha (P.W. 1), Sudhir Kumar (P.W.
2), Sudeep Kumar (P.W. 3), Sanjeev Kumar (P.W. 4),
Anupama Sinha (P.W. 5) and Satyanand Jha (P.W. 6). P.W. 5
is the victim and wife of Ratnesh Kumar Sinha, P.W. 4 is
the brother of victim and P.W. 6 is the Investigating Officer.
8. Some documents, viz, the written complaint,
endorsement of SHO, Gardanibagh on the written
complaint, some letters written by the daughter of the
informant, bank transaction report, prescription issued in
the name of the daughter of the de facto complainant by Dr.
Kanhaiya Singh at Ara and also by the Ram Krishna Math
Charitable Homeopathic Hospital at Pune, a copy of the
complaint submitted by the victim to the police at
Dhankauri out post, certified copy of orders, dated 4th of
December, 2008 and 8th of November, 2011, passed in
Complaint Case No. 2060 (C) of 2008 and certified copy of
Case No. 364 of 2013 filed by Ratnesh Kumar Sinha
against the de facto complainant were marked as Exhibit 1
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
to Exhibit 8 respectively. Though no witness had been
examined during trial by the defence, some photographs of
the victim were marked as Exhibit A to A/14 on admission.
An application form submitted by the victim on 20 th of
April, 2004 to Elixir Academy for self development, a letter
in the name of the victim showing that she was working as a
teacher in Singhad Technical Education Society, copy of the
seizure list, copy of signature of the de facto complainant
on the seizure list and a bank statement were marked as
Exhibit B to Exhibit E respectively.
9. The learned Trial Judge on due consideration
of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary held
accused Satyadeo Narayan Sinha and Ratnesh Kumar Sinha
guilty of committing offence under Section 498A and
convicted them accordingly. They were sentenced to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for a term of 3 years with fine of Rs.
5,000/-, in default, further imprisonment of 15 days for the
offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. The
above-named persons were convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
and sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
with fine of Rs. 5000/-, and in default, to suffer further
imprisonment of 15 days.
10. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that
Satyadeo Narayan Sinha died after delivery of judgement
by the Trial Court in G.R. Case No. 5207 of 2004.
11. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
order of conviction of sentence passed by the learned
SDJM, Patna in the above-mentioned case, Ratnesh Kumar
Sinha, the petitioner of Cr. Revision No. 551 of 2024
preferred Cr. Appeal No. 193 of 2017 which came up for
hearing before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd,
Patna. Learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the
order of conviction passed against Ratnesh Kumar Sinha for
the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC, but
the sentence of imprisonment was modified and reduced to
two years rigorous imprisonment.
12. Ratnesh Kumar Sinha has challenged the
correctness, legality and propriety of the findings of the
court's below and the order of sentence on the following
grounds:
(i) The F.I.R. of Gardanibagh P. S. Case No.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
926 of 2004, filed by the father of his wife,
Anupama Kumari, has not been proved in
accordance with the provisions of Evidence
Act as the informant / F.I.R. maker died
before the trial of the case and he did not
get any opportunity to adduce evidence on
behalf of the prosecution.
(ii) The Trial Court exhibited the written
complaint made by Saryu Prasad
Srivastava, since deceased, in evidence
through the Investigating Officer of this
case. An F.I.R. cannot be exhibited through
the Investigating Officer in terms of the
decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Lalita v. Vishwanath & Ors.:2025 SCC
OnLine SC 370.
(iii) The finding of the Trial Court is
perverse on the ground that it suffers from
material contradictions and omissions.
(iv) The Trial Court exhibited some
photostat copies of letters, allegedly written
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
by Anupama Kumari, wife of Ratnesh, to
her father and brothers, without following
mandatory requirements of Section 65 of
the Evidence Act.
13. Before I like to delve on the submissions
made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, let me state
the extent of powers of Revisional Courts to appreciate
evidence led by the witnesses during trial of a case.
Generally, it is right that appreciation of evidence by the
Revisional Court independently cannot be done. The
Revisional Court cannot upset the findings of fact by the
courts below unless the finding is perverse. In order to
come to the conclusion as to whether finding of facts by the
Trial Court and the lower Appellate Court is perverse or not,
the Revisional Court cannot substitute its own finding of
fact on appreciation of evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali: (2013) 5
SCC 762 relying on its previous decision in Amit Kapur v.
Ramesh Chander & Anr. Lays down thus: -
"Normally, a revisional jurisdiction should
be exercised on a question of law. However,
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
when factual appreciation is involved, then
it must find place in the class of cases
resulting in a perverse finding. Basically,
the power is required to be exercised so
that justice is done and there is no abuse of
power by the court. Merely an
apprehension or suspicion of the same
would not be a sufficient ground for
interference in such cases."
14. We may delineate the scope for interference
by the Revisional Court with the findings of fact recorded
by the lower court in the following circumstances: -
(a) findings of fact recorded by
lower court on evidence not available on
record
(b) material evidence, which
could have reflected on the merits and the
decision of the case, has been ignored by
the lower court
(c) finding of fact recorded on
an evidence not admissible
(d) material evidence discarded
by treating it as inadmissible
(e) finding of fact being
perverse in terms of law
(f) while disturbing the findings
of fact recorded by the lower court, the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
Revisional Court would not proceed to
appreciate or re-appreciate the evidence
itself. The Revisional Court would only
make its observation on the illegality
committed by the lower court in
appreciating the evidence and recording
findings of fact and by setting right the
mistakes of law committed by the lower
court, would set aside the findings and the
order of the lower court by directing it to
re-appreciate the evidence, record fresh
findings of fact as per law by keeping in
view the observations made by the
Revisional Court and pass fresh orders.
15. Bearing this principle in mind, let us now
examine the prosecution case on the point of F.I.R.
16. It is matter of record that the informant died
before commencement of trial of the case. The learned
Advocate for the petitioner seriously draws the attention of
the Court to note down his objection that the Trial Court
committed serious error in marking the F.I.R. as exhibit
through the Investigating Officer.
17. In Lalita v. Vishwanath (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court noted that the First Information Report was
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
lodged by the father of the deceased. However, before the
father could step into the witness box, he passed away. In
such circumstances, the Trial Court permitted the
Investigating Officer to prove the contents of the F.I.R. and
read it into the evidence as per Sec. 67 of the Evidence Act.
18. In paragraph 30 of Lalita v. Vishwanath
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: -
"30. F.I.Rs. can be registered by a victim, a
witness or someone else with the knowledge
of the crime. The police can record three
different kinds of statements. The first kind
of statement is one which can be recorded
as an F.I.R., the second kind of statement is
one which can be recorded by the police
during the investigation, and the third kind
of statement is any kind of statement which
would not fall under any of the two
categories mentioned above. Evidence is
the matter of testimony manifesting the fact
on a particular precision or circumstances.
The First Information Report is not by itself
a substantial piece of evidence and the
statement made therein cannot be
considered as evidence unless it falls within
the purview of Section 32 of the Evidence
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
Act. It is an admitted fact that the original
first informant because of the injuries
caused by the applicants. The relative
importance of a First Information Report is
far greater than any other statement
recorded by the police during the course of
the investigation. It is the foremost
information the police gets about the
commission of an offence and which can be
used to corroborate the story put-forward
by the first informant under Section 157 of
the Evidence Act or to contradict his
version by facts under Section 145 of the
Evidence Act in case he is summoned as a
witness in the case by the Court. It may
happen that the informant is the accused
himself. In such cases, the First
Information Report lodged by him cannot
be used as an evidence against him because
it is embodied in the basic structure of our
Constitution that a person cannot be
compelled to be a witness against himself."
19. Finally, in paragraph 34 of the above-
mentioned decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in
case the death of the informant has no nexus with the
complaint lodged i.e. he died a natural death and did not
succumb to the injuries inflicted on him in relation to a
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
matter, the contents of the F.I.R. would not be admissible in
evidence. In such circumstances, the contents cannot be
proved through the Investigating Officer. The Investigating
Officer, in the course of his deposition, should not be
permitted to depose the exact contents of the F.I.R. so as to
make them admissible in evidence. All that is permissible in
law is that the Investigating Officer can, in his deposition,
identify the signature of the first informant and that of his
own on the First Information Report and he can depose
about the factum of the F.I.R. being registered by him on a
particular date in a particular police station.
20. It is absolutely incorrect on the part of the Trial
Court and the High Court to say that in the absence of the
first informant, the police officer can prove the contents of
the F.I.R. as per Section 67 of the Evidence Act.
21. The learned Advocate on behalf of the
petitioner is, however, factually incorrect in his submission
that the FIR submitted by the father of Anupama Kumari
was exhibited by the Investigating Officer. On the contrary,
the evidence on record shows that the FIR was proved by
P.W. 2 Sudhir Kumar, who is the son of the informant, since
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
deceased. In his evidence, he sated "my father filed a case
in Patna. My father has expired. The FIR " लललखत आववदन"
was written and signed by my father. I know his
handwriting and signature.
22. It is needless to say that the FIR was brought in
evidence by marking exhibit through the son of the
informant, since deceased as he was acquainted with the
handwriting and signature of the informant. Therefore, the
contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that
the FIR was admitted in evidence by P.W. 6 is factually
wrong and cannot be accepted.
23. For the same reason, the ratio laid down in
Lalita Kumari v. Vishwanath (supra) is also not admissible
in evidence.
24. At this stage, the issue that falls for
consideration is as to whether prosecution case will fail if
the FIR is not exhibited during trial of a criminal case.
25. The first informant report does not constitute
substantive evidence though its importance as conveying
the earliest information regarding the occurrence cannot be
doubted. It can however only be used as a previous
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
statement for the purpose of either corroborating its maker
under Section 157 of the Evidence Act or for contradicting
under Section 145 of that Act. It cannot be used for the
purpose of corroborating other witnesses. It is an
information of a cognizable offence given under Section
154 of the Cr.P.C. and if there is a statement made therein, it
can only be used for the purpose of a contradicting and
discrediting a witness under Section 145 of the Evidence
Act. In the second place, the statement given by the
informant need not necessarily be an eye witness account of
what he has actually seen.
26. An FIR may contain the narration of an
incident or series of incidents/acts which the informant
came to know from another person, in the instant case, from
his daughter, son and others.
27. Therefore, FIR is an important document to set
the criminal law in motion. On the basis of the FIR
disclosing a cognizable offence, police is bound to lodge
formal FIR under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. Secondly, FIR
being the earliest version of the occurrence, the same can be
used for the purpose of corroboration under Section 157 of
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
the Evidence Act or contradiction under Section 145 of the
Evidence Act. The FIR does not have any more importance
in a criminal trial.
28. Now the same occasion may arise that the
contents of the FIR could not be exhibited because of the
death of the FIR maker. Death of the maker may be
unconnected with the offence complained of. In such cases,
the criminal trial cannot be held to be vitiated due to non-
examination of the informant and failure on the part of the
prosecution to mark an FIR as exhibit. It is the duty of the
Court to see as to whether the charge framed against the
accused has been proved on the basis of the evidence
adduced by the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution.
Therefore FIR not being a substantial evidence, prosecution
case cannot be thrown away merely because the contents of
the FIR has not been proved.
29. Thus, in the instant case, both the Trial Court
and the Court of Appeal rightly held that the institution of
FIR was proved by PW 2, the son of the informant (since
deceased). The Investigating Officer has also proved that on
the basis of the said FIR (Exhibit 1) Gardanibagh P.S. Case
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
No. 926 of 2004, punishable for the offences under Sections
379, 498A/34 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act was registered by the SHO of the said
police station and endorsement of the SHO was marked as
Exhibit 1/1.
30. With regard to relevancy of the contents of the
FIR, it has already been recorded that it can be used for the
purpose of corroboration or contradiction with the maker
and since the informant was not examined, the contents of
the FIR was not exhibited and, therefore, the contents of the
FIR were neither corroborated nor contradicted by any of
the prosecution witnesses.
31. Mr. Rajendra Narayan, learned Senior Counsel
on behalf of the opposite party submits that the
Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the
informant during investigation under Section 161 of the
Cr.P.C. In course of his evidence, the I.O. corroborated the
statement of the informant recorded by him under Section
161 of the Cr.P.C. The said evidence of the I.O. is an
important piece of evidence and such evidence is admissible
against the accused.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
32. I am not in a position to concur with the
submission made by the learned Senior Advocate on behalf
of the opposite party.
33. Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. ensures that no
statement made to the police which is reduced to writing be
signed by the person who makes it and no such statement or
any record of such a statement, whether in a police diary or
otherwise or any part of such statement or record shall be
used for any purpose other than those stated in the Section.
Thus, they may be used by the accused or by the
prosecution to contradict such witness in the manner
provided by Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act and
when it is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the
re-examination of such witness, but for the purpose only of
explaining any matter referred to in his cross-examination.
It means that statements made to the police can be used for
contradicting a prosecution witness in the manner indicated
in Section 145 of the Evidence Act. The particular portion
of the unsigned statements recorded by the Investigating
Officer can be used during the course of the examination of
the witnesses for the purpose of contradiction as provided
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
under Section 145 or for corroboration as provided under
Section 157 Evidence Act. They cannot be used for
corroboration of the evidence of a witness in Court.
Statements to the police are not admissible in any inquiry or
trial except for contradiction with the statement made by the
maker during trial of the case.
34. Therefore, an Investigating Officer cannot
corroborate the statement of a witness, in the instant case
the informant, recorded by him under Section 161 of the
Cr.P.C.
35. Such submission made by the learned Senior
Advocate opposite party does not have any leg to stand.
36. This Court has already recorded that
prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. Amongst
them, PW 1, Suresh Kumar Sinha is a distant relative of
Ratnesh. In his evidence, he stated that the marriage of
Anupama Kumari @ Geeta was solemnized in the year
2002. In the year 2003, the father of Anupama Kumari
requested him to go to the matrimonial home of his
daughter as his daughter was being harassed for further
dowry. The witness also stated that Ramji Babu (Father of
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
Ratnesh) stated that Ratnesh was demanding a sum of Rs.
3,00,000/- in cash and a motorcycle from the father of his
wife. The witness also stated on oath that all of them tried to
make him understand that the informant had no such
financial capacity to satisfy the demand of Ratnesh but
Ramji Babu was not ready to be convinced. The Saryu Babu
gave a sum of Rs. 45,000/- to Ramji Babu. Then they came
back from the matrimonial home of Anupama. After few
days, PW 1 accompanied the father of Anupama and others
to her matrimonial home. There was some altercation over
payment of dowry and Saryu Babu again paid a sum of Rs.
35,000/-. In course of cross-examination, this part of cross-
examination was not contradicted by the defence during
cross-examination. Even the cross-examination in-chief of
the P.W. 1 was not denied by the defence during cross-
examination.
37. PW 2 Sudhir Kumar and PW 3 Sudeep Kumar
are the brothers of Anupama Kumari. They also
corroborated the incident of demand of dowry of Rs.
3,00,000/- and a motorcycle by Ratnesh, his parents and
brother.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
38. It is important to note that during cross-
examination, the defence took a corroboration from P.W. 3
when he admitted that he knows the contents of the
statement made by his father to the police (पपतत जज कव बयतन
सव वतपकफ हह )ह . Thus, PW 2 exhibited the written complaint
subjected by Saryu Prasad Srivastava, since deceased, and
PW 3 admitted in his cross-examination that he is aware of
the contents of the said complaint submitted by the
informant, since deceased. PW 4 Sanjeev Kumar is another
brother of Anupama Kumari.
39. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has
referred to the cross-examination of the PW 2 and PW 5 to
demonstrate contradictions between their previous
statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and their
evidence on oath in Court.
40. I have perused the judgments passed by the
Trial Court as well as the Court of Appeal. Both the Courts
have dealt with the contradictions and found that there were
omissions in the statement of P.W. 5. Anupama Kumari
recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. regarding
payment of a sum of Rs. 45,000/- and Rs. 35,000/- on two
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
occasions by the informant to father of Ratnesh Kumar
Sinha, but the previous statement of P.W. 5 recorded under
Section 161of the Cr.P.C. is consistent with regard to
demand of a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- and a motorcycle by her
father-in-law. The evidence of P.W. 5 is also consistent with
regard to demand of dowry after her marriage and physical
and mental torture by the accused persons at her
matrimonial home at Ara and also by her husband in Pune.
41. On careful perusal of the evidence of P.W. 4
and examining the same with his previous statement, I find
certain omissions with regard to demand of dowry and
payment of money by his father to father of Ratnesh.
However, other incidents and matrimonial dispute between
Anupama Kumari and Ratnesh and his family members are
consistent with his evidence on oath.
42. On the question as to whether there were
material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of
P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 and whether omissions amount to
contradictions, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
the petitioner refers to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Alauddin & Ors. v. The State of Assam & Anr.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
(Criminal Appeal No. 1637 of 2021), decided on 3rd of
May, 2024.
43. I am tempted to quote paragraph nos. 5 to 10 of
the above-mentioned judgment in Alauddin (supra) because
I have not found any other expressions to deal with the
issue of contradictions and omissions than what has been
decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph nos. 5
to 10.
"5. Before we deal with the merits,
something must be stated about how the
trial court recorded the prosecution
witnesses' cross-examination in this case,
especially when they were confronted with
their prior statements. The Trial Court did
not follow the correct procedure while
recording the contradictions.
6. Under Section 161 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,
'CrPC'), the police have the power to
record statements of the witnesses during
the investigation. Section 162 of CrPC
deals with the use of such statements in
evidence. Section 162 reads thus:
"162. Statements to police not to
be signed: Use of statements in evidence.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
--(1) No statement made by any person to a
police officer in the course of an
investigation under this Chapter, shall, if
reduced to writing, be signed by the person
making it; nor shall any such statement or
any record thereof, whether in a police
diary or otherwise, or any part of such
statement or record, be used for any
purpose, save as hereinafter provided, at
any inquiry or trial in respect of any
offence under investigation at the time
when such statement was made:
Provided that when any witness is
called for the prosecution in such inquiry or
trial whose statement has been reduced into
writing as aforesaid, any part of his
statement, if duly proved, may be used by
the accused, and with the permission of the
Court, by the prosecution, to contradict
such witness in the manner provided by
Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 (1 of 1872); and when any part of
such statement is so used, any part thereof
may also be used in the re-examination of
such witness, but for the purpose only of
explaining any matter referred to in his
cross-examination.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
deemed to apply to any statement falling
within the provisions of clause (1) of
Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
(1 of 1872), or to affect the provisions of
Section 27 of that Act.
Explanation.--An omission to
state a fact or circumstance in the statement
referred to in sub-section (1) may amount
to contradiction if the same appears to be
significant and otherwise relevant having
regard to the context in which such
omission occurs and whether any omission
amounts to a contradiction in the particular
context shall be a question of fact."
The basic principle incorporated
in sub-Section (1) of Section 162 is that any
statement made by a person to a police
officer in the course of investigation, which
is reduced in writing, cannot be used for
any purpose except as provided in Section
162. The first exception incorporated in
sub-Section (2) is of the statements covered
by clause (1) of Section 32 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, 'Evidence
Act'). Thus, what is provided in sub-Section
(1) of Section 162 does not apply to a dying
declaration. The second exception to the
general rule provided in sub-Section (1) of
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
Section 162 is that the accused can use the
statement to contradict the witness in the
manner provided by Section 145 of the
Evidence Act. Even the prosecution can use
the statement to contradict a witness in the
manner provided in Section 145 of the
Evidence Act with the prior permission of
the Court. The prosecution normally takes
recourse to this provision when its witness
does not support the prosecution case.
There is one important condition for using
the prior statement for contradiction. The
condition is that the part of the statement
used for contradiction must be duly proved.
7. When the two statements cannot
stand together, they become contradictory
statements. When a witness makes a
statement in his evidence before the Court
which is inconsistent with what he has
stated in his statement recorded by the
Police, there is a contradiction. When a
prosecution witness whose statement under
Section 161 (1) or Section 164 of CrPC has
been recorded states factual aspects before
the Court which he has not stated in his
prior statement recorded under Section 161
(1) or Section 164 of CrPC, it is said that
there is an omission. There will be an
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
omission if the witness has omitted to state
a fact in his statement recorded by the
Police, which he states before the Court in
his evidence. The explanation to Section
162 CrPC indicates that an omission may
amount to a contradiction when it is
significant and relevant. Thus, every
omission is not a contradiction. It becomes
a contradiction provided it satisfies the test
laid down in the explanation under Section
162. Therefore, when an omission becomes
a contradiction, the procedure provided in
the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section
162 must be followed for contradicting
witnesses in the cross examination.
8. As stated in the proviso to sub-
Section (1) of section 162, the witness has
to be contradicted in the manner provided
under Section 145 of the Evidence Act.
Section 145 reads thus:
"145. Cross-examination as to
previous statements in writing.--A witness
may be cross-examined as to previous
statements made by him in writing or
reduced into writing, and relevant to
matters in question, without such writing
being shown to him, or being proved; but, if
it is intended to contradict him by the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
writing, his attention must, before the
writing can be proved, be called to those
parts of it which are to be used for the
purpose of contradicting him."
The Section operates in two parts.
The first part provides that a witness can be
cross-examined as to his previous
statements made in writing without such
writing being shown to him. Thus, for
example, a witness can be cross-examined
by asking whether his prior statement
exists. The second part is regarding
contradicting a witness. While confronting
the witness with his prior statement to
prove contradictions, the witness must be
shown his prior statement. If there is a
contradiction between the statement made
by the witness before the Court and what is
recorded in the statement recorded by the
police, the witness's attention must be
drawn to specific parts of his prior
statement, which are to be used to
contradict him. Section 145 provides that
the relevant part can be put to the witness
without the writing being proved. However,
the previous statement used to contradict
witnesses must be proved subsequently.
Only if the contradictory part of his
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
previous statement is proved the
contradictions can be said to be proved.
The usual practice is to mark the portion or
part shown to the witness of his prior
statement produced on record. Marking is
done differently in different States. In some
States, practice is to mark the beginning of
the portion shown to the witness with an
alphabet and the end by marking with the
same alphabet. While recording the cross-
examination, the Trial Court must record
that a particular portion marked, for
example, as AA was shown to the witness.
Which part of the prior statement is shown
to the witness for contradicting him has to
be recorded in the cross-examination. If the
witness admits to having made such a prior
statement, that portion can be treated as
proved. If the witness does not admit the
portion of his prior statement with which he
is confronted, it can be proved through the
Investigating Officer by asking whether the
witness made a statement that was shown to
the witness. Therefore, if the witness is
intended to be confronted with his prior
statement reduced into writing, that
particular part of the statement, even before
it is proved, must be specifically shown to
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
the witness. After that, the part of the prior
statement used to contradict the witness has
to be proved. As indicated earlier, it can be
treated as proved if the witness admits to
having made such a statement, or it can be
proved in the cross-examination of the
concerned police officer. The object of this
requirement in Section 145 of the Evidence
Act of confronting the witness by showing
him the relevant part of his prior statement
is to give the witness a chance to explain
the contradiction. Therefore, this is a rule
of fairness.
9. If a former statement of the
witness is inconsistent with any part of his
evidence given before the Court, it can be
used to impeach the credit of the witness in
accordance with clause (3) of Section 155
of the Evidence Act, which reads thus:
"155. Impeaching credit of
witness.--The credit of a witness may be
impeached in the following ways by the
adverse party, or, with the consent of the
Court, by the party who calls him--
(1) ..............................................
(2) .............................................
(3) by proof of former statements
inconsistent with any part of his evidence
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
which is liable to be contradicted."
It must be noted here that every
contradiction or omission is not a ground to
discredit the witness or to disbelieve his/her
testimony. A minor or trifle omission or
contradiction brought on record is not
sufficient to disbelieve the witness's version.
Only when there is a material contradiction
or omission can the Court disbelieve the
witness's version either fully or partially.
What is a material contradiction or
omission depends upon the facts of each
case. Whether an omission is a
contradiction also depends on the facts of
each individual case.
10. We are tempted to quote what
is held in a landmark decision of this Court
in the case of Tahsildar Singh & Anr. v.
State of U.P.1 Paragraph 13 of the said
decision reads thus:
"13. The learned counsel's first
argument is based upon the words "in the
manner provided by Section 145 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872" found in
Section 162 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Section 145 of the Evidence Act,
it is said, empowers the accused to put all
relevant questions to a witness before his
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
attention is called to those parts of the
writing with a view to contradict him. In
support of this contention reliance is placed
upon the judgment of this Court in
Bhagwan Singh v. State of Punjab [(1952) 1
SCC 514 : (1952) SCR 812]. Bose, J.
describes the procedure to be followed to
contradict a witness under Section 145 of
the Evidence Act thus at p. 819:
Resort to Section 145 would only
be necessary if the witness denies that he
made the former statement. In that event, it
would be necessary to prove that he did,
and if the former statement was reduced to
writing, then Section 145 requires that his
attention must be drawn to these parts
which are to be used for contradiction. But
that position does not arise when the
witness admits the former statement. In
such a case all that is necessary is to look
to the former statement of which no further
proof is necessary because of the admission
that it was made."
It is unnecessary to refer to other
cases wherein a similar procedure is
suggested for putting questions under
Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, for
the said decision of this Court and similar
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
decisions were not considering the
procedure in a case where the statement in
writing was intended to be used for
contradiction under Section 162 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 145 of
the Evidence Act is in two parts : the first
part enables the accused to cross-examine
a witness as to previous statement made by
him in writing or reduced to writing without
such writing being shown to him; the
second part deals with a situation where the
cross-examination assumes the shape of
contradiction : in other words, both parts
deal with cross examination; the first part
with cross-examination other than by way
of contradiction, and the second with cross-
examination by way of contradiction only.
The procedure prescribed is that, if it is
intended to contradict a witness by the
writing, his attention must, before the
writing can be proved, be called to those
parts of it which are to be used for the
purpose of contradicting him. The proviso
to Section 162 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure only enables the accused to
make use of such statement to contradict a
witness in the manner provided by Section
145 of the Evidence Act. It would be doing
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
violence to the language of the proviso if
the said statement be allowed to be used for
the purpose of cross-examining a witness
within the meaning of the first part of
Section 145 of the Evidence Act. Nor are we
impressed by the argument that it would not
be possible to invoke the second part of
Section 145 of the Evidence Act without
putting relevant questions under the first
part thereof. The difficulty is more
imaginary than real. The second part of
Section 145 of the Evidence Act clearly
indicates the simple procedure to be
followed. To illustrate : A says in the
witness box that B stabbed C; before the
police he had stated that D stabbed C. His
attention can be drawn to that part of the
statement made before the police which
contradicts his statement in the witness box.
If he admits his previous statement, no
further proof is necessary; if he does not
admit, the practice generally followed is to
admit it subject to proof by the police
officer. On the other hand, the procedure
suggested by the learned counsel may be
illustrated thus : If the witness is asked
"did you say before the police officer that
you saw a gas light?" and he answers
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
"yes", then the statement which does not
contain such recital is put to him as
contradiction. This procedure involves two
fallacies : one is it enables the accused to
elicit by a process of cross-examination
what the witness stated before the police
officer. If a police officer did not make a
record of a witness's statement, his entire
statement could not be used for any
purpose, whereas if a police officer
recorded a few sentences, by this process of
cross-examination, the witness's oral
statement could be brought on record. This
procedure, therefore, contravenes the
express provision of Section 162 of the
Code. The second fallacy is that by the
illustration given by the learned counsel for
the appellants there is no self-contradiction
of the primary statement made in the
witness box, for the witness has yet not
made on the stand any assertion at all
which can serve as the basis. The
contradiction, under the section, should be
between what a witness asserted in the
witness box and what he stated before the
police officer, and not between what he said
he had stated before the police officer and
what he actually made before him. In such
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
a case the question could not be put at all :
only questions to contradict can be put and
the question here posed does not
contradict; it leads to an answer which is
contradicted by the police statement. This
argument of the learned counsel based
upon Section 145 of the Evidence Act is,
therefore, not of any relevance in
considering the express provisions of
Section 162 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure."
(emphasis added)
This decision is a locus classicus,
which will continue to guide our Trial
Courts. In the facts of the case, the learned
Trial Judge has not marked those parts of
the witnesses' prior statements based on
which they were sought to be contradicted
in the cross-examination."
44. Bearing the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Alauddin (supra) on the question of
contradictions and omissions, this Court is of the view that
only material contradictions or omissions are the grounds to
discredit the witness or to disbelieve his/her testimony.
Minor omissions or contradictions brought on record is not
sufficient to disbelieve the evidence of witness. What is a
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
material contradiction or omission depends upon the facts
of each case.
45. In the instant case, the evidence of P.W.5, P.W.
2, P.W. 3 and P.W.4 are consistent with regard to demand of
dowry from the father of P.W. 5 and on his failure to satisfy
the demand, P.W. 5 was physically tortured and mentally
harassed.
46. In view of such consistent evidence, this Court
holds that the contradictions and omissions as pointed out
by the learned Advocate for the petitioner in the evidence of
P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 are minor in nature.
47. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
Ratnesh Kumar Sinha/petitioner lastly submits that the Trial
Court exhibited some photostat copies of letters, written by
Anupama Kumari to her father and brothers and relied on
the contents of the said letters. The photostat copies of
letters were not exhibited by the author of the letters. On the
contrary, it was exhibited by the brother of Anupama
Kumar, who received the letters. Surprisingly enough, the
original letters were not produced by the prosecution during
trial of the case. The Trial Court exhibited the said letters in
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
violation of the limitations prescribed under Section 65 of
the Evidence Act.
48. It is not denied by the learned Advocate
appearing on behalf of the petitioner that a photostat copy
of a letters being a secondary evidence within the meaning
of Section 63(2) of the Evidence Act, the same is admissible
only when the original is shown or appears to be in the
possession or power of the person against whom the
document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of
reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of
any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the
notice mentioned in Section 66, such person does not
produce it. Secondly, when the existence, condition or
contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in
writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his
representative in interest. Thirdly, when the original has
been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence
of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from
his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time.
Fourthly, when the original is of such a nature as not to be
easily available. Fifthly, when the original is a public
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
document within the meaning of Section 74. Sixthly, when
the original is a document of which a certified copy is
permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in India
to be given in evidence and lastly when the originals consist
of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot
conveniently be examined in Court and the fact to be
proved in a general result of the whole collection.
49. In the instant case, the photostat copy of
letters, written by Anupama were exhibited without any
explanation as to whether the said letters were lost or
destroyed or for any other reason, the party, producing it,
was not in a position to file the original letters.
50. It is submitted by the learned Advocate
appearing on behalf of the petitioner that both the courts
below committed gross illegality in giving reliance on the
copies of the letters, allegedly written by Anupama to her
father and brothers, holding, inter alia, that those are
contemporaneous documents to the incidents of cruelty
within the meaning of Section 498A of the IPC.
51. It is contended by the learned Advocate for the
petitioner that since the said letters were not exhibited
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
following the procedure enunciated in Section 65 of the
Evidence Act, the said letters are not admissible during trial
of the case.
52. In support of his contention, he refers to a
judgement in the case of Jagmail Singh & Anr. Karamjit
Singh & Ors., reported in AIR 2020 SC 2319.
53. On the same point, he also refers to the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J. Yashoda v.
Smt. K. Shobha Rani, reported in (2007) 5 SCC 730 and
paragraph 10 of H. Siddiqui (dead) by LRs v. A.
Ramalingam, reported in (2011) 5 SCR 587.
54. Having heard the learned counsels for the
parties and on perusal of the impugned passed by the Trial
Court and affirmed by the Court of Appeal, this Court likes
to record at the outset that the revisional jurisdiction of this
Court is very limited. Unless, the order passed by the courts
below are found to be perverse or the view taken by the
courts is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration
of any relevant material or there is palpable mislead of
records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside
the order, merely because another view is possible. The
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
Revisional Court is not meant to act as an Appellate Court.
The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to
preserve the power of the Court to do justice in accordance
with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional
power of the Court under Section 397 to 401 of the Cr.P.C.
is not be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding
of the Court whose decision is sought to be revised is
shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly
erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is
based on no material or where the material facts are wholly
ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised
arbitrarily or capriciously, the Courts cannot interfere with
the decision in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
55. This has been observed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray
Gulabrao Phalke & Ors., reported in (2015) 3 SCC 123.
56. Bearing this principle in mind, let me now
consider as to whether there was any illegality, irregularity
or lack of propriety in the order of conviction passed by the
Trial Court and affirmed by the lower court of appeal.
57. I have already narrated the evidence adduced
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
by the witnesses during trial of the case.
58. Explanation to Section 498A defines "cruelty"
in following words: -
(a) any willful 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.
59. The evidence on record clearly shows that
from the date of "Duragaman", father of Ratnesh started
demanding dowry of Rs. 3,00,000/- and a motorcycle.
When father of Anupama expressed his inability to pay the
said amount, Duragaman was done only after Ratnesh was
gifted a wrist watch of Titan Company. P.W. 1 is a distant
relative of father of Ratnesh. P.W. 1 and father of Anupama
were classmates. In his evidence, he stated that more than
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
once, he accompanied father of Anupama to her
matrimonial home at Ara to settle the dispute relating to
demand of dowry by the father of Ratnesh. The accused
persons reiterated their demand in presence of P.W. 5. He
also stated in his evidence that he saw father of Anupama to
pay Rs. 45,000/- and Rs. 35,000/- on two occasions to
father of the petitioner. Only after payment of Rs. 35,000/-,
Ratnesh took his wife to Pune. The evidence on record is
sufficient regarding demand of dowry and harassment of
Anupama with a view to coercing her by Ratnesh and other
accused persons to meet their unlawful demand of money
and motorcycle.
60. Thus, this Court finds that prosecution case in
respect of charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code was correctly decided by both the courts below in
terms of Clause (b) of explanation to Section 498 A of the
IPC.
61. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason
to interfere with the order of conviction.
62. Anupama Kumari has filed Cr. Revision No.
561 of 2024 for enhancement of sentence, which was
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
reduced by the Appellate Court from three years rigorous
imprisonment to two years rigorous imprisonment.
63. This Court finds that the criminal case was
instituted in the year 2004. The case is pending for last 21
years. During this long 21 years, the petitioner suffered
mental trauma and agony, due to pendency of the case.
Though the 1st Appellate Court did not assign any reason for
reduction of the period of sentence, this Court is of the view
that the mitigating factors with regard to penology may
induce the Appellate Court to reduce the sentence of
imprisonment by one year.
64. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, I do not find any reason to turn down the said order of
sentence passed by the Appellate Court.
65. Both the Criminal Revisions, bearing Cr.
Revision No. 551 of 2024 and Cr. Revision No. 561 of 2024
are dismissed, on contest.
66. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
67. The petitioner of Cr. Revision No. 551 of 2024
is directed to surrender before the Trial Court within 15
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.551 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
days from the date of this Order to suffer sentence, failing
which the Trial Court is at liberty to take action against the
convict, Ratnesh Kumar Sinha, in accordance with law.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
skm/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 05.05.2025
Uploading Date 09.05.2025
Transmission Date 09.05.2025
