IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.1313 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-191 Year-2009 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Jamui

Manoj Yadav Son of Bundi Yadav, Resident of Village- Bhullo, Police
Station-Sikandra, District-Jamui.

… … Petitioner/s
Versus

1. State of Bihar.

2. Rajni Devi, wife of Manoj Yadav, Resident of Village- Acharya Dih, Kumar
Tola, Police Station-Sikandra, District-Jamui.

… … Respondent/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Jagjit Roshan
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sri Anand Kishore Choudhary

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 28-03-2019

Heard the parties.

2. This criminal revision petition is filed against the

judgment and order dated 09.01.2018 passed by learned

Additional District Court, Fast Track Court-I, Jamui, in Cr.

Appeal No. 6 of 2016 by which Cr. Appeal filed by petitioner

was dismissed, affirming the judgment of conviction and order

of sentence dated 18.01.2016 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial

Magistrate, Jamui in Complaint Case No. 191 of 2009

convicting petitioner under Section 498A of IPC and sentencing

to undergo simple imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.

3000/- and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and

sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months

and fine of Rs. 3000/-. Both the sentences to run concurrently.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1313 of 2018 dt.28-03-2019
2/4

3. Opposite Party No. 2 had filed a Complaint Case

against petitioner alleging that marriage between the parties

were solemnized in the year 2005 and after marriage opposite

party No. 2 came to her matrimonial home but soon thereafter

her in laws and her husband started torturing her for non

fulfillment of Rs. 20,000/- as dowry. Attempt was made to kill

her by poisoning and also by setting her ablaze. She was ousted

from her matrimonial home and all her jeweleries and

ornaments were kept by the accused.

4. Charges were framed under Section 498A of IPC

and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act to which petitioner pleaded not

guilty and claim to be tried. The trial court found the charges to

be proved against the petitioner, however, other accused were

exonerated of charges.

5. Altogether three witnesses were examined on behalf

of prosecution and they were cross examined by the defence.

P.W. 3 is Rajni Devi, Complainant and in her examination in

chief she has stated that she was married to petitioner on

23.09.2010 as per Hindu Customs and rituals and after marriage

she went to her matrimonial home and after some time Rs.

20,000/- was demanded and on non-fulfillment of Rs. 20,000/-

she was assaulted and also deprived of food. Attempt was also
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1313 of 2018 dt.28-03-2019
3/4

made to kill her. In her cross examination she stated that she

wanted to live with petitioner but was not ready to go with

petitioner from the court. She has further stated that petitioner

has performed 2nd marriage. P.W.1 is mother of complainant and

P.W. 2 is brother of complainant who have supported the

allegations as made in complaint case.

6. On behalf of defence a certified copy of order passed

in matrimonial suit NO. 45/10 dated 05.08.2011 passed by

Family Court was produced which was marked as exhibit A in

which the petition filed by petitioner for restitution of conjugal

rights was allowed by the Family Court and it was argued that in

spite of said order opposite party No. 2 refused to go to her

matrimonial house to resume her married life.

7. After considering the evidence on record and its

appreciation, the trial court found the charges to be proved

against petitioner and passed order dated 18.01.2016 of

judgment of conviction and order of sentence and aggrieved

from which petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal being Cr. Appeal

NO. 6 of 2016 and after reappraisal and re-appreciation of the

evidences led before the trial court, the appellate court did not

find any error in the finding of trial court and dismissed the

criminal appeal of petitioner against which present revision has
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1313 of 2018 dt.28-03-2019
4/4

been filed.

8. After hearing the parties and perusing the orders

passed by the trial court and the appellate court, this Court does

not find any error, illegality or irregularity in the judgment and

order passed by court below as such the judgment of conviction

is upheld, however, since it was the first offence committed by

the petitioner and in spite of order passed by the Family Court

allowing the petition of petitioner for restitution of Conjugal

Rights, even thereafter opposite party No. 2 did not resume her

married life, as such the order of sentence is modified to the

period already undergone.

9. In the result, the judgment of conviction is upheld,

however, the order of sentence is modified to the period already

undergone.

10. The criminal revision petition is partly allowed to the

extent as indicated above. Petitioner is directed to be released

from prison if not wanted in any other case.

(S. Kumar, J)
veena/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 09.04.2019
Transmission Date 09.04.2019