Patna High Court
Md. Aftab Ahmad @ Aftab Ahmad vs The State Of Bihar on 17 June, 2025
Author: Jitendra Kumar
Bench: Jitendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.23 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-184 Year-2001 Thana- ASHTHAWAN District- Nalanda
======================================================
Md. Aftab Ahmad @ Aftab Ahmad, Son of late Nooruddin Ahmad, Resident
of Harun Nagar Colony No.-2, P.S.- Phulwari Sharif, District- Patna, At
Present- Flat No.-301, Park View Apartment, Salimpur Ahra Gali, P.S.-
Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sanowar Jahan, aged about 45 years (Female), D/o, Late Abdul Moghni,
Resident of Village - Harganwa, P.S.- Sare, District - Nalanda.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Narain, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Prashant Kashyap, Advocate
Ms. Annapurna Sinha, Advocate
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Birendra Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 17-06-2025
The present Criminal Revision petition has been
preferred by the petitioner against the impugned judgment and
order of sentence dated 29.09.2021, passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge-III, Nalanda at Biharsharif in
Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2019, whereby the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court
against the petitioner has been upheld, though the co-convict
viz., Daizy was acquitted. Learned Trial Court vide judgment
and order of sentence dated 21.05.2019 had found the petitioner
herein guilty under Section 498A of the IPC and sentenced him
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.23 of 2022 dt.17-06-2025
2/29
to S.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in
default to pay the fine, he was further directed to suffer
additional S.I. for one month.
Prosecution Case
2. The prosecution case as emerging from the written
report to the police is that the informant/Sanowar Jahan was
married to the petitioner/Md Aftab Ahmad @ Aftab Ahmad in
the year 1993 and a daughter was born out of the wedlock. At
the time of marriage, Rs. 50,000/- in cash, jewelry of golden and
silver, clothes, utensils and furniture were also given. After the
marriage, the informant joined the matrimonial home. But, after
some time, the husband, mother-in-law/Mumtaz Ara, sister-in-
law, Kaisar Jahan and husband of sister-in-law, Fahimuddin
started demanding additional dowry by way of motorcycle and
Rs. 50,000/-, failing which she was threatened not to be allowed
to settle at the matrimonial home. On account of non-fulfillment
of demand of dowry, the accused started committing physical
and mental cruelty against the informant. However, the same
was tolerated by her, hoping that good day would come. But the
accused persons kept torturing and depriving her of food. She
used to inform her parents regarding the demand of dowry, but
they used to express their inability to fulfill the demand and
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.23 of 2022 dt.17-06-2025
3/29
used to go to her matrimonial home to make the accused
understand their inability to fulfill the demand. But despite that,
the accused persons mixed poison in her food with intent to kill
her. However, she got inkling that poison was mixed in her food
and hence, she threw the food. The accused persons also tried to
kill her. On 28.08.2001, the accused persons snatched all the gift
items from the informant and ousted her from the matrimonial
home after beating her. Somehow, she came back to her parental
home along with her daughter.
Evidence of Both the Parties
3. During trial, altogether the following witnesses
were examined on behalf of the prosecution:-
(i) P.W.-1 is Md. Anwar Nasim.
(ii) P.W.-2 is Md. Nisar Ahmed.
(iii) P.W.-3 is Sanowar Jahan.
(iv) P.W.-4 is Shahid Ahmed.
4. The prosecution also brought on record the written
complaint by marking it as Ext.-1. However, no other
documentary evidence was produced by the prosecution.
5. In defence, the accused persons also examined the
following witnesses.
(i) D.W.-1 is Ramprasad Choudhary
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.23 of 2022 dt.17-06-2025
4/29
(ii) D.W.-2 is Rajendra Prasad
(iii) D.W.-3 is Kameshwar Prasad
6. Letter to Registrar, Patna High Court was also
marked as Ext. A by the defence.
Findings of the Trial Court
7. After appreciating the evidence on record and
considering the submissions advanced by the parties, learned
Trial Court found only the petitioner herein Md. Aftab Alam @
Aftab Alam and co-accused, Daizy guilty under Section
498A/34 of IPC and sentencing both of them to S.I. for one year
and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to pay the fine, they
were further directed to suffer additional S.I. for one month.
However, both of them were acquitted of charge under Sections
3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Other co-accused were
acquitted of all charges.
Findings of the Appellate Court
8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of
sentence passed by learned Trial Court, the convicts including
the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal bearing No. 20 of 2019
before learned Sessions Court. The appeal was allowed qua
Daizy and she was acquitted. However, judgment of conviction
and order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court against the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.23 of 2022 dt.17-06-2025
5/29
petitioner herein was upheld. Hence, being aggrieved by the
judgment of the Appellate Court, the petitioner has preferred the
present revision petition.
Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner
9. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned judgment is not sustainable either in law or on facts.
Learned Appellate Court has committed error of law and facts to
uphold the conviction of the petitioner under Section 498A of
the Indian Penal Code.
11. To substantiate his submission, learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been already
acquitted of charge under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act and the same was never challenged by the
prosecution before any higher court. Hence, the demand of
dowry could not be proved by the prosecution and there is no
allegation of any such conduct on the part of the petitioner
which could have driven the informant to commit suicide or
caused grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health. Hence,
the conviction of the petitioner under Section 498A IPC was
erroneous as it is based on no evidence in support of it.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.23 of 2022 dt.17-06-2025
6/29
Submissions on behalf of the Opposite Parties
12. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for
the O.P. No. 2, however, defend the impugned judgment passed
by the learned Appellate Court submitting that there is no
illegality or infirmity in it. But as per record, there is neither
error of law, nor perversity of any finding. The judgment is
based on proper appreciation of law and facts and this Court
under revisional jurisdiction is not required to re-appreciate the
evidence and supplant its opinion in place of that of the Trial
Court or the Appellate Court, who have concurrently upheld the
conviction and order of sentence passed against the petitioner
herein. He further submits that the petitioner has not pointed out
any exceptional situations which may require interference by
this Court in the impugned judgment and order of sentence.
13. I considered the submissions advanced by the
parties and perused the materials on record.
Extent and Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction
of the High Court
14. Before I proceed to consider the rival submission
of the parties, it is desirable to find the extent and scope of
revisional jurisdiction of High Court. Sections 397 and 401
Cr.PC provide for revisional jurisdiction of High Court.
15. Section 397 Cr.PC reads as follows:-
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.23 of 2022 dt.17-06-2025
7/29“Section 397. Calling for records to exercise
powers of revision. (1) The High Court or any Sessions
Judge may call for and examine the record of any
proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate
within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of
satisfying itself or himself; to the correctness, legality or
propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or
passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such
inferior Court, and may, when calling, for such record,
direct that the execution of any sentence or order be
suspended, and if the accused is in confinement that he be
released on bail or on his own bond pending the
examination of the record.
Explanation.—All Magistrates, whether Executive or
Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate
jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions
Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of section
398.
(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section
(1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory
order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other
proceeding.
(3) If an application under this section has been made
by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions
Judge, no further application by the same person shall be
entertained by the other of them.”
(Emphasis supplied)
16. Section 401 Cr.PC reads as follows:-
“Section 401. High Court’s powers of revision.
(1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which
has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to
its knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion,
exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal
by sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of
Session by section 307, and, when the Judges composing
the Court of Revision are equally divided in opinion, the
case shall be disposed of in the manner provided by
section 392.
(2) No order under this section shall be made to the
prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had
an opportunity of being heard either personally or by
pleader in his own defence.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.23 of 2022 dt.17-06-2025
8/29authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal
into one conviction.
(4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no
appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall
be entertained at the instance of the party who could have
appealed.
(5) Where under this Code an appeal lies but an
application for revision has been made to the High Court
by any person and the High Court is satisfied that such
application was made under the erroneous belief that no
appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests
of Justice so to do, the High Court may treat the
application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal
with the same accordingly.”
(Emphasis supplied)
17. As such, as per the statutory provisions, the
revisional jurisdiction is a discretionary power conferred upon
the High Court to look into correctness, legality or propriety of
any finding, sentence or order as recorded or passed by
subordinate Courts. It is also provided to look into the regularity
of any proceeding of the inferior Courts.
18. Revisional jurisdiction of High Court with
reference to Sections 397 and 401 Cr.PC has been explained by
Hon’ble Apex Court on several occasions.
19. In Akalu Ahir and Ors. Vs. Ramdeo Ram as
reported in (1973) 2 SCC 583, Hon’ble Apex Court was dealing
with a case wherein the accused were acquitted by Assistant
Sessions Judge, against which the victim had filed criminal
revision in the High Court. The revision petition was allowed by
the High Court setting aside the judgment of acquittal and
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.23 of 2022 dt.17-06-2025
9/29
remanding the case back for retrial. Here adverting to the power
of revision conferred on a High Court by Section 439 read with
Section 435 of old Cr.PC, Hon’ble Apex Court held that
revisional jurisdiction is an extraordinary discretionary power
vested in the superior Court to be exercised in aid of justice; in
other words, to set right grave injustice. The High Court has
been invested with this power to see that justice is done in
accordance with the recognized rules of criminal jurisprudence
and that the subordinate courts do not exceed their jurisdiction
or abuse the power conferred on them by law. As a general rule,
this power in spite of the wide language of Sections 435 and 439
of old Cr.PC does not contemplate interference with the
conclusions of fact in the absence of serious legal infirmity and
failure of justice. This power is certainly not intended to be so
exercised as to make one portion of the Code of Criminal
Procedure conflict with another; as would seem to be the case
when in the garb of exercising revisional power, the High Court
in effect exercises the power of appeal in face of statutory
prohibition.
20. Hon’ble Apex Court has further held in Akalu
Ahir case (supra) that it is not expected of High Court to act
under Sections 435/439 CrPC as if it is a hearing on appeal in
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.23 of 2022 dt.17-06-2025
10/29
spite of the wide language under Section 435 which empowers it
to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of a
finding, sentence or order and as to the regularity of any
proceeding and also in spite of the fact that under Section 439 it
can exercise inter alia the power conferred on a Court of appeal
under Section 423 Cr.PC. The power being discretionary, it has
to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. Judicial
discretion, means a discretion which is informed by tradition,
methodised by analogy and disciplined by system.
21. In Akalu Ahir case (supra), Hon’ble Supreme
Court also referred to and relied upon Amar Chand v. Shanti
Bose as reported in AIR 1973 SC 799 wherein Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that revisional jurisdiction is to be
exercised only in exceptional cases when there is a glaring
defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on point of
law and there has consequently been flagrant miscarriage of
justice.
22. Applying the aforesaid principles the Hon’ble
Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court in Akalu
Ahir case (supra) holding that the the appraisal of evidence by
the trial Judge in the case in hand was not perfect or free from
flaw and a Court of appeal might well have felt justified in
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.23 of 2022 dt.17-06-2025
11/29
disagreeing with its conclusion, but from this it did not follow
that on revision by a private complainant, the High Court was
entitled to re-appraise the evidence for itself as if it is acting as a
Court of appeal and then order a re-trial.
23. In K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of A.P., as
reported in 1962 SCC OnLine SC 32 also, the Hon’ble Apex
Court has explained the revisional jurisdiction of High Court.
Here, the accused was convicted and sentenced by Assistant
Sessions Judge in trial but in appeal before the Sessions Court,
the accused were acquitted, against which the revision was filed
before the High Court by the complainant. In the revision, the
High Court set aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the
Appellate Court directing retrial of the accused.
24. Here, in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy case (supra)
Hon’ble Apex Court referred to judicial precedents and held that
under revisional jurisdiction, the High Court has no power to
convert finding of acquittal into one of conviction even
indirectly by ordering re-trial by re-appreciating evidence. It is
further held that revisional jurisdiction should be exercised by
High Court only in exceptional cases when there is some glaring
defects in the procedure and there is manifest error on the point
of law and subsequently there has been flagrant miscarriage of
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.23 of 2022 dt.17-06-2025
12/29
justice.
25. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further held in K.
Chinnaswamy Reddy case (supra) that it is not possible to lay
down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which
would cover all contingencies. However, Hon’ble Apex Court
has indicated some cases of this kind, which would justify the
High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision.
Such cases as illustrated by Hon’ble Apex Court are as follows :
(i) where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the
case but has still acquitted the accused, or;
(ii) where the trial court has wrongly shut out
evidence which the prosecution wished to produce, or;
(iii) where the appeal court has wrongly held evidence
which was admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible, or;
(iv) where material evidence has been overlooked
either by the trial court or by the appeal court, or;
(v) where the acquittal is based on a compounding of
the offence, which is invalid under the law.
26. In Duli Chand Vs. Delhi Administration as
reported in (1975) 4 SCC 649, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
clearly held that the jurisdiction of the High Court in a criminal
revision application is severely restricted and it cannot embark
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.23 of 2022 dt.17-06-2025
13/29
upon a re-appreciation of the evidence.
27. In Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary and Ors. as
reported in (1992) 4 SCC 305, the Hon’ble Apex Court has
again explained the revisional jurisdiction of High Court under
Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.PC holding that the object
of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 is to confer
power upon superior criminal courts — a kind of paternal or
supervisory jurisdiction — in order to correct miscarriage of
justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of
procedure, neglect of proper precaution or apparent harshness of
treatment which has resulted, on the one hand, or on the other
hand in some underserved hardship to individuals. The
controlling power of the High Court is discretionary and it must
be exercised in the interest of justice with regard to all facts and
circumstances of each particular case, anxious attention being
given to the said facts and circumstances which vary greatly
from case to case.
28. In Vimal Singh v. Khuman Singh and Anr. also
as reported in (1998) 7 SCC 223, the Hon’ble Apex Court has
explained the extent and scope of revisional jurisdiction of High
Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.PC. In this
case the accused was acquitted by the Trial Court against which
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.23 of 2022 dt.17-06-2025
14/29
revision was preferred before the High Court by the
complainant. Allowing the criminal revision, the High Court had
set aside the judgment of acquittal and had convicted and
sentenced the accused.
29. Here, in Vimal Singh case (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court referred to and relied upon K. Chinnaswamy
Reddy case (supra) and held that the High Court in its
revisional power does not ordinarily interfere with judgments of
acquittal passed by the trial court unless there has been manifest
error of law or procedure. The interference with the order of
acquittal passed by the trial court is limited only to exceptional
cases when –
(i) it is found that the order under revision suffers
from glaring illegality or;
(ii) has caused miscarriage of justice or;
(iii) when it is found that the trial court has no
jurisdiction to try the case or;
(iv) where the trial court has illegally shut out the
evidence which otherwise ought to have been considered or;
(v) where the material evidence which clinches the
issue has been overlooked.
30. In Vimal Singh case (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.23 of 2022 dt.17-06-2025
15/29
has further held that sub-section (3) of Section 401 mandates
that the High Court shall not convert a finding of acquittal into
one of conviction. Thus, the High Court would not be justified
in substituting an order of acquittal into one of conviction even
if it is convinced that the accused deserves conviction. No
doubt, the High Court in exercise of its revisional power can set
aside an order of acquittal if it comes within the ambit of
exceptional cases enumerated above, but it cannot convert an
order of acquittal into an order of conviction. The only course
left to the High Court in such exceptional cases is to order
retrial. In fact, sub-section (3) of Section 401 of the Code
forbids the High Court in converting the order of acquittal into
one of conviction.
31. In the State of Kerala Vs. Puttumana Illath
Jathavedan Namboodiri as reported in (1999) 2 SCC 452, the
Hon’ble Apex Court has again explained the revisional
jurisdiction of High Court holding that the jurisdiction is one of
supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for
correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power
cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court, nor can
it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily,
therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.23 of 2022 dt.17-06-2025
16/29
appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the
same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the
Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any
glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which
would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice.
32. In Thankappan Nadar and Ors. vs. Gopala
Krishnan and Anr. as reported in (2002) 9 SCC 393, the
Hon’ble Apex Court has again dealt with the revisional
jurisdiction of High Court under Section 397 read with Section
401 Cr.PC. In this case the accused was convicted by the Trial
Court. However, in appeal, the convicts were acquitted by the
Sessions Judge, against which revision was filed before the
High Court by the complainant. The High Court allowed the
revision setting aside the judgment of acquittal passed by
Appellate Court of Sessions.
33. Here, in Thankappan Nadar case (supra) the
Hon’ble Apex Court referred to and relied upon the following
judgments and set aside the order of High Court holding that the
High Court has not found any procedural illegality or manifest
error of law in the order passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge
and only by re-appreciating the evidence, the High Court has set
aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the Appellate Court
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.23 of 2022 dt.17-06-2025
17/29
which is not permissible in Criminal Revision:
(i) Akalu Ahir and Ors. vs Ramdeo Ram
1973 (2) SCC 583
(ii) Vimal Singh Vs Khuman Singh
1998 (7) SCC 323
(iii) Logendranath Jha Vs Polai Lal Biswas
AIR 1951 SC 316
(iv) K. Chinnaswami Reddy vs State of A.P.
1962 SCC Online SC 32
(v) Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs Sarju Singh
AIR 1968 SC 707
(vi) Pakalapati Raju vs Bonapalli Peda Appadu
1975 (4) SCC 477
(vii) Ayodhya Dube Vs Ram Sumer Singh
1981 Supp SCC 83
34. In Jagannath Choudhary and Ors. v. Ramayan
Singh and Anr. as reported in (2002) 5 SCC 659, the Hon’ble
Apex Court has again explained the revisional jurisdiction of
High Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.PC.
Here, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that it is now well
settled in a long catena of cases that the exercise of the
revisional power is discretionary and only in case of glaring
defect in procedural aspect or there being manifest error on
point of law, causing a flagrant miscarriage of justice, the
exercise of revisional jurisdiction is required.
35. Hon’ble Supreme Court was again dealing with
revisional jurisdiction of High Court in Bindeshwari Prasad
Singh @ B.P. Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar (Now
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.23 of 2022 dt.17-06-2025
18/29
Jharkhand) & Anr. as reported in (2002) 6 SCC 650. In this
case, the accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 302
IPC by the Trial Court of Sessions. The criminal appeal filed by
the State against the acquittal before the High Court was
dismissed on the ground of limitation. However, the informant
preferred the criminal revision before the High Court which was
allowed by the High Court setting aside the judgment of
acquittal and remitting the case to the Sessions Judge for re-
trial.
36. Here in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh @ B.P.
Singh case (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that
ordinarily High Court does not interfere in revision with an
order of acquittal except in exceptional cases where the interest
of public justice requires interference for the correction of a
manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of
justice.
37. In Bindeshwari Prasad Singh case (supra),
Hon’ble Apex Court further held that the case on hand was not
one where any such illegality was committed by the trial court.
In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in
the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High
Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. In that
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.23 of 2022 dt.17-06-2025
19/29
case, Hon’ble Apex Court did not find any perversity in the
judgment of the Trial Court. No defect of procedure was found,
nor was any improper acceptance or rejection of evidence, nor
was there any defect of procedure or illegality in the conduct of
the trial vitiating the trial itself. At the best, the High Court
thought that the prosecution witnesses were reliable while the
trial court took the opposite view. Hence, the order of the High
Court was set aside.
38. In Shlok Bhardwaj v. Runika Bhardwaj & Ors.
as reported in (2015) 2 SCC 721, Hon’ble Apex Court has again
held that it is well settled that the scope of revisional jurisdiction
of the High Court does not extend to re-appreciation of
evidence. In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court
can interfere with the acquittal only if there is perversity in the
order of acquittal.
39. In Ganesha v. Sharanappa & Anr. as reported in
(2014) 1 SCC 87, has again dealt with revisional jurisdiction of
High Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.PC. It
has also considered sub-section (1) of Section 401 Cr.PC as per
which the High Court is empowered in its discretion to exercise
any of the powers conferred on the Court of appeal by Sections
386, 389, 390 and 391 Cr.PC. Considering the statutory
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.23 of 2022 dt.17-06-2025
20/29
provisions, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that despite
provisions of Section 386, High Court in revisional jurisdiction
cannot convert finding of acquittal into one of conviction.
However, it has been held by Apex Court that in a case where
the finding of acquittal is recorded on account of misreading of
evidence or non-consideration of evidence or perverse
appreciation of evidence, nothing prevents the High Court from
setting aside the order of acquittal at the instance of the
informant in revision and directing fresh disposal on merit by
the trial court. In the event of such direction, the trial court shall
be obliged to re-appreciate the evidence in light of the
observation of the Revisional Court and take an independent
view uninfluenced by any of the observations of the Revisional
Court on the merit of the case.
40. However, in Ganesha case (supra), by way of
caution, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that interference with the
order of acquittal in revision is called for only in cases where
there is manifest error of law or procedure and in those
exceptional cases in which it is found that the order of acquittal
suffers from glaring illegality, resulting into miscarriage of
justice. Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the High Court
may also interfere in those cases of acquittal caused by shutting
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.23 of 2022 dt.17-06-2025
21/29
out the evidence which otherwise ought to have been considered
or where the material evidence which clinches the issue has
been overlooked. In such an exceptional case, the High Court in
revision can set aside an order of acquittal but it cannot convert
an order of acquittal into that of an order of conviction. The only
course left to the High Court in such exceptional cases is to
direct retrial.
Summary of the Law relating to Revisional
Jurisdiction of the High Court
41. As such, it clearly emerges from the statutory
provisions and judicial precedents that revisional jurisdiction
conferred upon the High Court is a kind of paternal or
supervisory jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section
401 Cr.PC in order to correct the miscarriage of justice arising
out of judgment, order, sentence or finding of subordinate
Courts by looking into correctness, legality or propriety of any
finding, sentence or order as recorded or passed by subordinate
Courts and as to the regularity of any proceeding of such
inferior Courts.
42. However, the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by
the High Court is discretionary in nature to be applied
judiciously in the interest of justice.
43. Under revisional jurisdiction, the High Court is
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.23 of 2022 dt.17-06-2025
22/29
not entitled to re-appreciate the evidence for itself as if it is
acting as a Court of appeal, because revisional power cannot be
equated with the power of an Appellate Court, nor can it be
treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Hence,
ordinarily, it is not appropriate for the High Court to re-
appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the
same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the
Trial and Appellate Court, unless there are exceptional situations
like glaring error of law or procedure and perversity of finding,
causing flagrant miscarriage of justice, brought to the notice of
the High Court. Such exceptional situations have been
enumerated by Hon’ble Apex Court on several occasions which
are as follows:-
(i) when it is found that the trial court has no
jurisdiction to try the case or;
(ii) when it is found that the order under revision
suffers from glaring illegality or;
(iii) where the trial court has illegally shut out the
evidence which otherwise ought to have been considered or;
(iv) where the judgment/order is based on
inadmissible evidence, or;
(v) where the material evidence which clinches the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.23 of 2022 dt.17-06-2025
23/29issue has been overlooked either by the Trial Court or the
Appellate Court or;
(vi) where there is perverse appreciation of evidence
or;
(vii) where the acquittal is based on a compounding of
the offence, which is invalid under the law.
44. However, it has been cautioned by Hon’ble
Supreme Court that the aforesaid kinds of situations are
illustrative and not exhaustive.
45. Moreover, in revisional jurisdiction, the High
Court is also prohibited by express provision in Section 401 (3)
Cr.PC to convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction.
However, if it is found by the High Court that finding of
acquittal is recorded on account of misreading of evidence or
non-consideration of evidence or perverse appreciation of
evidence, the High Court can direct re-trial by pointing out such
situations and thereafter, the Trial Court is obliged to re-
appreciate the evidence in light of the observation of the
Revisional Court and take an independent view uninfluenced by
any of the observations of the Revisional Court on the merit of
the case.
Present Case
46. Now coming to the case on hand, I find that the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.23 of 2022 dt.17-06-2025
24/29
petitioner herein was found guilty under Section 498A IPC by
the Trial Court and the same has been upheld by the Appellate
Court of Sessions. I also find that the petitioner was acquitted of
charge under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the
same has not been challenged by the informant before any
higher Court. As such, this finding of the Court below stands
final.
47. I further find that the main submission on behalf
of the petitioner is that for want of any proof in support of
allegation of demand of dowry as alleged in the FIR, charge
under Section 498A IPC against the petitioner fails, because
there is no evidence of any such conduct on the part of the
petitioner which could have caused grave injury or danger to the
life, limb or health of the informant. Hence, the impugned
judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court suffers from
perverse appreciation of evidence and hence, it is liable to be set
aside.
Ingredients of Section 498A, IPC
48. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it
becomes imperative to advert to Section 498A IPC before I
consider the submission on behalf of the petitioner. Section
498A IPC reads as follows:-
“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.23 of 2022 dt.17-06-2025
25/29subjecting her to cruelty.-Whoever, being the husband or
the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such
woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for
a term which may extend to three years and shall also be
liable to fine.
Explanation.–For the purposes of this section, “cruelty
means”–
(a) any wilful 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.”
49. From the statutory provisions of Section 498A
IPC, it clearly transpires that Section 498A IPC gets attracted
against the husband or his relative only when they subject the
women to cruelty. ‘Cruelty’ has been defined by the Explanation
to Section 498A IPC and it has two limbs – (a) and (b). As per
the first limb, ‘cruelty’ means any willful conduct which is of
such a nature which is likely to drive the women to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health.
Here, there is no reference to any demand of dowry.
50. However, as per the second limb to the
Explanation to Section 498A IPC, ‘cruelty’ also means
harassment of the woman which has been made with intent to
coerce her or any of her relative to meet any unlawful demand
for any property or valuable security or such harassment has
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.23 of 2022 dt.17-06-2025
26/29
been made on account of her failure or failure of her relative to
meet such unlawful demand. Here again, there is no reference to
demand of dowry, though demand of dowry is covered under the
unlawful demand. As such, harassment of a woman by unlawful
demand of dowry also partakes character of cruelty.
51. As such, demand of dowry is not sine qua non to
make out an offence of cruelty under Sectin 498A IPC. Hence,
an accused can be convicted of charge under Section 498A IPC,
even if there is no evidence of demand of dowry, if otherwise
his willful conduct or harassment caused by him comes under
the definition of cruelty as defined by two limbs of the
Explanation to Section 498A IPC.
Findings and Order of this Court
52. Now coming to the case on hand, I find that the
petitioner has been acquitted of the charge of demand of dowry
by the Trial Court and the same has not been challenged by the
informant in any higher Court and hence, finding of the Trial
Court regarding demand of dowry stands final.
53. Hence, the only question to be considered is
whether the finding of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court
regarding guilt of the petitioner under Section 498A IPC is
sustainable. In other words, whether such findings of the Courts
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.23 of 2022 dt.17-06-2025
27/29
below are based on perverse appreciation of evidence or there is
no evidence in support of such finding or that is based on
inadmissible evidence or any material evidence has been
overlooked by the Courts below.
54. From perusal of the FIR, prosecution evidence and
the close scrutiny of the judgments of the Trial Court as well as
the Appellate Court, I find that thrust of the allegation leveled
by the informant/wife against the petitioner/husband is that
husband/petitioner was harassing her with intent to coerce her
and her relative to meet unlawful demand of dowry and in this
regard, there is also allegation of committing physical and
mental cruelty to the informant. However, I find that allegation
of demand of dowry has already been found false by the Trial
Court as well as the Appellate Court and the same has not been
challenged by the informant in any higher Court.
55. I further find that before lodging the FIR, a letter
was admittedly written by the informant to the Registrar
General, Patna High Court, Patna, which does not disclose any
allegation of physical or mental cruelty committed by the
petitioner against the informant as the informant/wife has
clearly admitted in her cross-examination. It has also come in
the cross-examination of the informant/wife that no injury report
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.23 of 2022 dt.17-06-2025
28/29
was prepared during investigation, nor had she shown any mark
of injury to the police. But I find that such material evidence has
been overlooked by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate
Court. As such, there is no cogent evidence adduced by the
informant and her witnesses to prove any willful conduct on the
part of the petitioner/husband against the informant/wife which
could have caused grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
of the informant/wife. There is also no evidence to prove the
allegation of harassment with intent to coerce the informant or
her relative to meet unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security.
56. Hence, I find that finding of conviction by the
Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court is based on perverse
appreciation of the evidence and misreading/overlooking
material evidence, causing miscarriage of justice, warranting
interference by this Revisional Court. Hence, the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence are not sustainable
in the eye of law and and they are liable to be set aside.
57. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed,
setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence, acquitting the petitioner of all the charges.
58. Any interlocutory applications, if pending, stand
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.23 of 2022 dt.17-06-2025
29/29
disposed of. Let Lower Court Records along with a copy of this
order be sent back to the Courts concerned.
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
shoaib/ravi
shankar/S.Ali
AFR/NAFR A.F.R.
CAV DATE 12.12.2024.
Uploading Date 17.06.2025.
Transmission Date 17.06.2025.