IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 124 of 2018
Arising Out of Complaint Case No.-242 Year-1994 Thana- EAST CHAMPARAN
COMPLAINT District- East Champaran

Chunu Prasad Yadav @ Chunnu Ray @ Chunnu Prasad Yadav, Son of Surya
Rai @ Suruj Rai, resident of village – Naya Tola Harpur, P.O. P.S.- Pipra
Kothi, District- East Champaran.

… … Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Manju Devi, wife of Chunnu Prasad Yadav, Daughter of Dwarika Rai,
resident of village- Murarpur Tola Baghaut, P.S. Harsidhi, District- East
Champaran.

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Shankar Shrivastava, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
For the opposite party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar and
Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, Advocates

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN
AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 25-10-2019

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned APP

for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. The petitioner has moved the Court under Sections

397 and Section401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the

judgment dated 01.11.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 83 of

1997/18 of 2017 by the Fast Track Court-II, East Champaran,

Motihari, by which the judgment and order of conviction and

sentence dated 14.08.1997 passed in Trial No. 535 of 1997 arising

out of Complaint Case No. 242 of 1994 by the Judicial Magistrate,

1st Class, Motihari, East Champaran has been affirmed.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.124 of 2018 dt.25-10-2019
2/4

3. The opposite party no. 2 is the wife of the petitioner

and had filed the complaint case and trial was held under Sections

494 and Section498A of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the SectionDowry

Prohibition Act, 1961. After trial, the petitioner was convicted

under Sections 494 and Section498A of the Indian Penal Code and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and

fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and

rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- under

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and in default to further

undergo simple imprisonment for four months. Challenge to the

same in Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 1997/18 of 2017, was also

rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no

evidence has been adduced with regard to the second marriage. It

was submitted that neither the second wife nor her father or

relatives have been examined. It was further submitted that all the

witnesses are interested witnesses.

5. Learned APP, from the Lower Court Records, and

learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that the law

does not prohibit any person who is related not to depose. It was

further submitted that PW 4 namely, Bir Narain Rai, is an

independent witness and he has categorically stated with regard to
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.124 of 2018 dt.25-10-2019
3/4

the second marriage as also with regard to him having attended

the second marriage of the petitioner. He submitted that in fact,

PW 4 has stated in his deposition that he was a friend of the father

of the petitioner and was invited to the marriage. It was submitted

that in the cross examination, he has not changed his stand.

Learned counsel submitted that as far as offence under Section

498A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the witnesses have

consistently stated that there was torture. It was submitted that it

has come during deposition of the witnesses that one of the

reasons for the torture was the second marriage of the petitioner.

Learned counsel submitted that there is a girl child born out of the

wedlock of the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court

does not find any merit in the present application. Having gone

through the deposition of the witnesses and the judgments

impugned, it is clear that the charge of cruelty inflicted on the

opposite party no. 2 has clearly been brought home and has not

been diluted in cross-examination. The issue of the witnesses

being interested is noted only for the sake of rejecting the same.

As has rightly been submitted by learned counsel for the State and

learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, law does not prohibit
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.124 of 2018 dt.25-10-2019
4/4

or debar related witnesses to depose. The only requirement is that

such deposition should inspire confidence and should withstand

the test of law.

7. In the present case, nothing has been brought to the

notice of the Court to indicate that the testimony of such witnesses

is unreliable. Furthermore, it has not been denied that PW 4 is not

related to the opposite party no. 2 and, thus, cannot be said to be

unworthy of his testimony to be relied upon. Moreover, the

discussions made by the trial Court are exhaustive and cogent and

the inferences drawn are based on the records available before the

Court, especially the testimony of the witnesses. The

consideration by the appellate Court is also sound and does not

require any interference.

8. In view thereof, the application stands dismissed.

9. The petitioner shall surrender before the Court below

within two weeks from today to serve the remaining sentence.

10. The Lower Court Records be returned forthwith.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR
U
T