IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 544 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2001 Thana- BIHTA District- Patna
1. Deo Prasad Sao @ Deo Prasad, Son of Late Gariban Sao.
2. Deo Narain Sao, Son of Late Gariban Sao,
Both resident of Village- Matora, P.S.- Masaurhi, District- Patna.
… … Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Poonam Devi, Wife of Satya Narain Sao, At resident of Village- Raghopur,
P.S.- Bihta, District- Patna.
… … Opposite Party/s
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bindeshwar Prasad Singh,
Mr. Ajay Kumar and
Mr. Rudra Deo, Advocates
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN
AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-09-2019
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State.
2. Despite notice being issued to the opposite party no.
2, who is the complainant/informant, which was validly served on
her, nobody appeared when the matter was taken up and heard.
3. The petitioners have moved the Court under Sections
397 and Section401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the
judgment dated 27.07.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, X, Patna in Cr. Appeal No. 25 of 2013, by which the
judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.01.2013
against the petitioners and others passed by the Sub Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Danapur in the district of Patna relating to GR
No. 328 of 2001/Trial Case No. 444 of 2013, has been upheld.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.544 of 2018 dt.19-09-2019
2/3
4. The petitioners along with four others were convicted
under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
simple imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs. 3,000/- each and
in default, they were to undergo further two months simple
imprisonment. Challenge to the same was also rejected in Cr.
Appeal No. 25 of 2013, by order dated 27.07.2016.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
opposite party no. 2 is the wife of their brother, who is also co-
accused namely, Satya Narayan Sao. It was submitted that the
petitioners have no concern with the matrimonial dispute of the
parties and the allegation is that after birth of a male and female
child and two years of marriage, she was tortured and assaulted
for dowry of Rs. 8,000/- and beaten up and all her ornaments were
snatched. It was submitted that such allegation, even if believed,
can at best be attributed to husband, as the petitioners could not
have any role or could not have benefited from any dowry or
money which the wife of their brother would have fetched from
the matrimonial home. It was submitted that the witnesses during
trial have made only omnibus and general allegations and there is
nothing specific against them.
6. Learned APP, from the Lower Court Records
submitted that the witnesses have stated with regard to all the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.544 of 2018 dt.19-09-2019
3/3
accused, including the petitioners, assaulting and torturing the
opposite party no. 2 and it is quite believable that the petitioners
being elder brothers of the husband of the opposite party no. 2,
would definitely have been party to any torture or assault as their
brother stood to gain from any dowry which is alleged to have
been demanded.
7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the
case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties as well as
the materials before the Court below, the Court does not find that
the order of conviction requires any interference. However, with
regard to the sentence, since the petitioners are elder brothers of
the husband of the opposite party no. 2 and had been in custody
for more than six months and about four months respectively, the
Court is inclined to modify the sentence to period undergone.
8. Accordingly, the application stands disposed off
upholding the order of conviction but modifying the sentence to
period undergone. Further, fine of Rs. 3,000/- is also set aside.
9. The Lower Court Records be returned forthwith.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)
P. Kumar
AFR/NAFR
U
T