Patna High Court
Suman Prakash Choudhary vs The State Of Bihar on 29 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.269 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2014 Thana- SAHJAHANPUR District- Patna
======================================================
1. Suman Prakash Choudhary Son Of Madan Choudhary R/O Village-
Maksudpur, P.S.- Sahjahanpur, District- Patna
2. Madan Mohan Choudhary Son Of Sukhu Choudhury R/O Village-
Maksudpur, P.S.- Sahjahanpur, District- Patna
3. Shakuntala Devi Wife Of Madan Mohan Choudhary R/O Village-
Maksudpur, P.S.- Sahjahanpur, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Abha Kumari Daughter of Sri Anil Choudhary, Resident of Village- Sarswati
Lane, East Lohanipur, Ps- Kadamkuan, District- Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr. Pandey, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. S.K. Lal, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Raj Shekhar, Advocate
Mr. Promod Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-01-2025
The instant criminal revision is directed against the
judgment and order dated 27.02.2023 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Patna City in Criminal Appeal
No.68 of 2022. The learned Court of Appeal affirmed the order
of conviction dated 26.05.2022 passed by the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City in G.R. Case No.377
of 2014, Trial No.4931 of 2022 arising out of Sahjahanpur P.S.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.269 of 2023 dt.29-01-2025
2/9
Case No.05/2014, however, modified the sentence passed
against petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 directing them to undergo simple
imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under
Section 498A of the I.P.C. and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-.
The above-named two accused persons were sentenced to suffer
imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the
offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act. The order of sentence passed against the petitioner No.1
remained the same without any modification.
2. It is apposite to mention the case of the prosecution,
in brief, at the outset. That on 08.02.2014 one Abha Kumari
lodged a written complaint in the local police station stating,
inter-alia, that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner
No.1 on 17.05.2013. After marriage all the accused persons
started torturing her on demand of dowry in the form of one Car
and a flat. They also threatened her with dire consequences, if
their demands were not fulfilled. As her husband used to stay in
Kolkata at the relevant point of time she went to Kolkata thrice
to stay with her husband but she was driven out. She informed
the said fact to the jurisdictional police station in Kolkata, which
was recorded in General Diary Book. He also informed about
his plight to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Patna.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.269 of 2023 dt.29-01-2025
3/9
Subsequently, on the basis of her complaint Sahjahanpur P.S.
Case No.05 of 2014 was registered for offences punishable
under Sections 341, 323, 504, 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation,
police submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons/
petitioners under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and section 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. During trial, prosecution examined four witnesses.
PW-1 Meena Devi is the mother of the informant, PW-2 Anil
Chaudhary is the father of the informant, PW-3 Abha Kumari, is
the informant herself and PW-4 Prabhat Shankar is the
Investigating Officer. During the evidence of the witnesses on
behalf of the prosecution some documents were filed, which
were marked Exhibits-1 to 7.
4. During trial of the case, the defence also adduced as
many as five witnesses, DW-1, DW-2 & DW-5 are the accused
persons/petitioners, while one Nisha Kumari and Siya
Choudhary were examined as DW-3 & DW-4 respectively.
5. It is needless to say that in a revisional application
challenging the order of sentence, the revisional Court should be
very slow in interfering with the concurrent finding of fact.
Ordinarily concurrent findings of facts recorded by Courts
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.269 of 2023 dt.29-01-2025
4/9
below would not be interfered by the High Court, where there is
concurrent finding by the Lower Court regarding cruelty
allegedly committed by the petitioners upon the defacto
complainant/wife. The court should not interfere with the
judgment because reapprisal of evidence like a Court of Appeal
is not permissible for the Revisional Court. It is the satisfaction
of the Magistrate, which is a relevance for the purposes of
Section 397 read with section 401 of the Cr.P.C., a revisional
Court may have to power to correct any error in the order passed
by the Magistrate but it will be beyond its power and
jurisdiction to reassess the evidence and so on such
reassessment to arrive at a finding which is ad-variance with the
finding recorded by the Magistrate. An appraisal of evidence is
not permissible in revision petition. The High Court while
hearing revisions does not work as an Appellate Court and will
not reappreciate the evidence, unless some glaring feature is
pointed out, which may show that injustice has been done.
6. It is submitted by Mr. Rajendra Narayan, learned
Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioners that during trial and
in appeal the Court of first instance as well as the Appellate
Court committed glaring mistake, for which the petitioners are
suffering order of conviction and sentence without no fault of
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.269 of 2023 dt.29-01-2025
5/9
them.
7. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that both
the Court below failed to appreciate the evidence in its true
purport and thereby committed gross illegality misreading the
evidence on record. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is
perverse.
8. Thus, in case of glaring error and/or mistake in
appreciation of evidence in rare cases when the finding with
regard to sentence is challenged before the revisional court, the
Court can go through the evidence on record without re-
appreciation of the same.
9. This Court has already recorded the case of the
prosecution. It was alleged by her that immediately after
marriage, the petitioners demanded dowry in the form of a car
and a residential flat, when the defacto complainant was unable
to fulfill their demand, she was treated with cruelty.
10. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel on
behalf of the petitioners that the written complaint was lodged
by the defacto complainant in Sahjahanpur Police Station on
08.02.2014
, admittedly marriage of the defacto complainant
with petitioner No.1 was solemnized on 17.05.2013. Therefore,
during 2013 she did not make any complaint before any
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.269 of 2023 dt.29-01-2025
6/9
authority. Both the Courts below placed heavy reliance on G.D.
Entry No.1543 of 2014 dated 21.01.2014 lodged by the
informant at Vidhan Nagar Salt Police Station, Salt Lake
Kolkata-700098. In the said G.D. entry she alleged that her
husband was a post graduate student in National Institute of
Homeopathy, Salt Lake City on being called by him the defacto
complainant came to his hostel situated near the college, when
she reached the campus to meet him he left her without any
reason. He spent the night of 20.01.2014 on the footpath. On the
next day, he took her to Patna. Subsequently, on 18.01.2014 he
submitted an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Patna informing inter-alia that after her marriage the
matrimonial relations of the informant used to harass her over
the quality of her ornaments. The father of the defacto
complainant tried to console her husband but he abused him. On
14.11.2013 the father of the informant took him to Kolkata to
meet the husband of the informant but the petitioner No.1
refused to meet his wife. It is also alleged by the complainant
that the parents of the petitioner No.1 decided to arrange his
marriage with another lady, who passed M.B.B.S.
11. Thus, it is contended by the learned Senior
Counsel on behalf of the petitioners that the informant did not
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.269 of 2023 dt.29-01-2025
7/9
make any allegation with regard to illegal demand of a car and a
flat and such allegation in the F.I.R. was made only to create a
false story of cruelty and illegal demand of dowry.
12. The learned senior advocate on behalf of the
petitioners further submits that neither the trial court nor the
court of appeal did not consider the defence case. It is the
specific case of defence that after marriage when the petitioner
No.1 went to his matrimonial home with his wife he saw one
Album with photographs of first marriage of the defacto
complainant. Seeing this the defacto complainant immediately
snatched away the Album and in the meantime, the petitioner
No.1 was able to take away 09 photographs of first marriage of
the petitioner No.1. It was subsequently learnt that the defacto
complainant was previously given marriage to one Mukesh
Chaudhary. The witnesses on behalf of the accused persons
denied the allegation of cruelty on demand of a car and a flat.
13. During trial of the case, the informant and her
parents deposed as witnesses on behalf of the prosecution. No
other independent witness could be examined by the
prosecution, except the allegation made in the F.I.R. No other
document was produced by the prosecution to prove that there
was illegal demand of a car and a flat and for failure on the part
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.269 of 2023 dt.29-01-2025
8/9
of the informant, she was tortured by the accused persons.
14. On the other hand, documents filed by the defacto
complainant suggests that she was not allowed to stay by
petitioner No.1 in the hostel of his college in Kolkata. In the
G.D. Entry lodged by the defacto complainant in Vidhan Nagar
Salt police station or in the application for information of the
incident before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the
petitioner did not utter a single word about demand of a car and
a flat.
15. In view of such circumstances, this Court does not
have any alternative but to hold that charge against the accused
persons/petitioners was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
There are material discrepancies in the case record and neither
the learned Magistrate nor the Court of appeal took into
consideration the discrepancies. Had the discrepancies been
considered, there would have been a judgment of acquittal.
16. For the reasons stated above, the instant criminal
revision is allowed on contest, however, without cost.
17. The judgment and order of conviction and
sentence passed by the Trial Court in G.R. Case No.377 of
2014, Trial No.4931 of 2022 dated 26.05.2022 and modified
order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.269 of 2023 dt.29-01-2025
9/9
Judge-1st, Patna City in Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2022 are set
aside. The accused persons are acquitted of the charge, set at
liberty and released from their respective bail bonds.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
mdrashid/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE 21.01.2025 Uploading Date 29.01.2025 Transmission Date 29.01.2025
[ad_1]
Source link