SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Deo Prasad Sao @ Deo Prasad And Anr vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 19 September, 2019

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation