JITENDAR SAO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CAV On Dated- 15/3/2024 Pronounced On -17/5/2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

(2.) The present criminal revision is directed against the judgment dtd. 24/2/2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and other co-convicts have been acquitted. The petitioner was convicted by the learned trial court vide judgment dtd. 10/6/2015 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad passed in C.P. Case No. 1369 of 2010 and was held guilty for the offence under Sec. 498A of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case giving rise to this revision is that complainant Gyatri Devi was married with present petitioner Jitendra Sao on 16/8/2008. After marriage complainant came to her matrimonial home, where additional demand of dowry was raised in the shape of Rs.50,000.00 for purchasing motorcycle, due to non- fulfillment of which by the parents of the complainant, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by not supplying her proper food, cloths, medicines and torturing and tormenting regularly. It is alleged that prior to marriage, the father of the complainant transferred a big chunk of land of 95 1/2 decimals in the name of complainant through the registered sale deed. When the accused persons came to know about the said property in the name of complainant, her husband started putting pressure to get the land transferred in his favour. It is also alleged that present petitioner was habitual drunker and frequently used to assault the complainant with fist, slaps and legs. She was ousted from matrimonial home, but later on an agreement was entered into between the parties on 8/2/2010, wherein the husband (petitioner) undertake not to torture the complainant in future and keep her quite well, but their demand and torture against the complainant did not stop rather increased, then matter was reported to police, but no action has been taken, hence this complaint case was lodged.