Hari Narayan Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:18898
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1124 of 2016
------
Hari Narayan Yadav, s/o Atwari Yadav, r/o Village and P.O. –
Pipcho, P.S. – Jainagar, District – Koderma.
.... …. Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Uma Devi, d/o Karam Yadav, W/o Hari Naryan Yadav, r/o
Village – Dandadih, P.S. – Jainagar, District – Koderma.
…. .... Opp. Parties
------
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
Mr. Sumeet Anand, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate.
------
JUDGMENT
CAV On Dated- 11.06.2026 Pronounced On 29.06.2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. appearing for the State as well as learned counsel for
the opposite party no. 2.
2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the
judgment dated 10.08.2016 passed by learned Sessions
Judge, Koderma in Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2014,
whereby and whereunder the conviction of the petitioner for
the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. passed by
st
learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 Class, Koderma in G.R. No.
515 of 2010 (arising out of Jainagar P.S. Case No. 80 of
2010) has been upheld and the petitioner has been
sentenced to undergo S.I. for 02 years along with fine of Rs.
1
2026:JHHC:18898
1,000/- for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C.
with default stipulation.
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that
informant Uma Devi was married with the petitioner in the
year 2002. She joined her matrimonial home and started
living there peacefully for 4-5 years. It is further alleged that
thereafter her husband (present petitioner) went to Delhi for
studies and also got job there. The informant also
completed her matriculation in the meantime. It is alleged
that after returning from Delhi, her husband stopped
talking with her and conduct and behaviour of her in-laws
also changed, who started misbehaving, abusing and
assaulting. Therefore, informant returned to her parental
home. Thereafter, a Panchayati was convened by her father,
wherein it was resolved that husband of the informant will
keep her at sasural. Accordingly, informant went to her
sasural, but the accused persons started demanding Hero
Honda motorcycle and 2 lakhs rupees cash as dowry. She
was being taunted and tormented saying that if at present
her husband might have married, he would have brought
Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs) as dowry. The assault
and torture meted to informant increased and she was
forced to live separately. Her ornaments were also snatched.
It is alleged that on 13.05.2010, she was assaulted by
2
2026:JHHC:18898
accused persons and they also attempted to kill her, but
she was unable to come out from matrimonial house.
Hence, she called upon her brother Sukhdeo Yadav and
handed over written report for instituting case by police.
4. On the basis of written report of informant, FIR was
instituted for the offence under Sections 323, 498A, 379,
506 read with 34 I.P.C. After conclusion of investigation,
charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons for
the offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 read with 34 of
the I.P.C.
5. In course of trial, altogether nine witnesses were
examined by the prosecution apart from documentary
evidence.
6. On the other hand, the case of defence is denial from
occurrence and false implication on concocted story. The
informant is still residing in her matrimonial home and
getting her maintenance by her husband and in-laws.
7. The learned trial court, after appreciating the evidence
of witnesses has convicted and sentenced the petitioner.
The learned appellate court also concurred with the
findings recorded by the learned trial court has dismissed
the appeal, which has been assailed in this revision.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the impugned findings, judgment and sentence against the
3
2026:JHHC:18898
petitioner are perverse and contrary to the evidence
available on record. It is further submitted that the learned
appellate court has upheld the conviction of the petitioner
only on the sole ground that he is not keeping his wife with
him which amounts to cruelty.
9.
It is further submitted that the learned trial court as
well as appellate court have erred in not considering the
evidence of the prosecution in its true spirit in the context
of the petitioner. Therefore, this revision is fit to be allowed
by setting aside the conviction and sentence of the
petitioner.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel A.P.P. appearing
for the State along with learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 2 has vehemently opposed the contention raised
on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that there is
concurrent finding of both the courts i.e. trial court as well
as appellate court. The learned trial court as well as learned
appellate court has not committed any error of law in
convicting and sentencing the petitioner. Therefore, there is
no merit in this appeal, calling for any interference in the
impugned judgment and order, which it fit to be dismissed.
11. I have gone through the record of the case along with
impugned order in the light of contentions raised on behalf
of both side.
4
2026:JHHC:18898
12. It appears that the learned trial court, while
appreciating the evidences of witnesses examined during
trial, has recorded objective findings that all witnesses
except P.W.-5 and P.W.-8 (informant) have stated in very
general and vague manner about illegal demand of dowry
and torture meted with the informant at the hands of
accused persons. The evidence shows that petitioner is not
interested in matrimonial life and compelled to leave his
wife alone in her matrimonial home. However, the learned
trial court has held the petitioner guilty for the offence
under Sections 498A & 323 of the I.P.C.
13. The convict preferred Cr. Appeal No. 47 of 2014 before
the learned Sessions Judge, who after hearing the parties,
upheld the impugned judgment passed by learned trial
court, but has recorded specific findings that “ there is
strained relationship between informant and her husband.
Her husband is living at Delhi and despite of steps taken by
his father, he is not coming to his village. It can also be
gathered from the materials available on record that
informant is residing at her sasrual. Her brother Prakash
Yadav (P.W.-2) in para-4 of his cross-examination, has
admitted this fact that his sister receives something from the
cultivation of land belonging to her husband. Father-in-law
and mother-in-law of the informant reside at Dhanbad
5
2026:JHHC:18898
and occasionally they visit their village. It is true that father-
in-law of the informant has not transferred his movable and
immovable properties in favour of the informant as per
direction of the Panchayat but it is apparent that informant is
enjoying the property of her father-in-law. The allegations
of demand of dowry appears to be false
. The allegations
of assault of the informant at the hands of the accused
persons also appears to be not true. Her husband is not
residing with her for a long time while her father-in-law and
mother-in-law reside at Dhanbad. She had alleged tortured
at the hands of her Dewar also. As discussed above, police
has found this allegations not true. But there is no doubt that
husband of the informant is avoiding her. He had instituted
MTS Case No. 10/2010 u/s.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act
against the informant for dissolution of marriage. Certified
copy of order sheet of MTS Case No.10/2010 is on the record
which has been marked Ext. A. Not keeping his wife with
him by a husband without any proper ground also
amounts to cruelty . The learned counsel for the appellants
has fairly submitted that despite the pressure mounted by
his father and mother, the appellant/convict Hari Naryan
Yadav is not coming to Koderma and he is not ready to keep
his wife with him. It appears to me that certainly the
appellants /convicts are guilty of cruelty which he is
6
2026:JHHC:18898
committing with the informant continuously. So far as case of
other two appellants/convicts is concerned, I find that they
have been implicated in this case only because they are
parents of husband of the informant. In my view, appellants
/convicts Atwari Yadav and Basanti Devi deserve benefit of
doubt but no leniency can be shown towards appellant
/convict Hari Narayan Yadav .”
14. In view of aforesaid findings recorded by the learned
appellate court, other co-convicts were given benefit of
doubt and acquitted from the charges leveled against them.
The petitioner, alone, was held guilty for the offence under
Section 498A of the I.P.C.
15. It further appears that out of nine witnesses, the
witnesses of facts namely P.W.-1 Sukhdeo Yadav, P.W.-2
Prakash Yadav, P.W.-3 Darshan Yadav, P.W.-4 Basudeo
Yadav and P.W.-5 Hiraman Mistri are hearsay witnesses
from the informant. P.W.-6 Mahesh Sao is witness of
Panchayati. P.W.-7 Manoj Yadav has only submitted
educational certificate. P.W.-9 S.I. Ram Sagar Tiwari is the
Investigating Officer in this case. Therefore, sole material
witnesses in this case is P.W.-8 Uma Devi, who is
informant-cum-victim, in her examination-in-chief, she has
corroborated the contents of her earliest version mentioned
in the written report, but in her cross-examination, she
7
2026:JHHC:18898
specifically admits that when the Panchayati was convened,
her husband did not attend, but she has not complained
about any physical assault meted to her at the hands of her
husband and in-laws nor there was any illegal demand of
money. She also admits that she is still residing at her
sasural since 2010, but her husband and in-laws are not
residing with her and her husband even does not talk with
her. The husband has snapped all emotional concern with
her and not interested in keeping her at place of service.
16. From perusal of record, it further transpires that the
charge under Section 498A I.P.C. framed by the learned
trial court, reads as under:-
th
“That you on or about the 13 May, 2010 and also
th
after 5 yar of marriage at Pipcho, P.S.- Jainagar, Distt.
Koderma, being the husband and relative of the
husband of Uma Devi subjected the said Uma Devi to
cruelty mental and physical in furtherance of common
intention of all of you.”
17. There is concurrent finding of learned trial court as
well as learned appellate court that the allegation of
demand of money or motorcycle and giving physical assault
to the informant was found to be not true on the basis of
evidence adduced in this case. The learned trial court relied
upon the evidence recorded in examination-in-chief of the
8
2026:JHHC:18898
informant and without considering the materials elicited in
her cross-examination, held the accused persons guilty for
the offences charged. It further transpires that the learned
appellate court has recorded specific finding that in view of
materials elicited in the cross-examination of the informant,
she is still residing at her matrimonial home, although
there is no talking terms with her husband, which also
amounts to cruelty against wife, but he has ignored the fact
that due to matrimonial discord between the parties, the
husband has already been granted decree of divorce from
his wife. Divorce petition was filed by the petitioner against
his wife as he was not interested to continue his marital life
with the informant. Mere status of husband and wife
showing some matrimonial discard and paying no attention
against each other and showing reluctance in discharging
conjugal rights and obligations does not fall within ambit of
Section 498A I.P.C. as culpable cruelty. It appears that the
learned trial court has assumed the conduct of the
appellant (petitioner herein) amounting to cruelty against
his wife, which is absolutely unfounded and merely based
on conjecture and surmises. Therefore, the very basis for
conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section
498A of the I.P.C. is upheld by the learned appellate court,
appears to be not justified under law, illegal and improper.
9
2026:JHHC:18898
Therefore, conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the
offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. appears to be
perverse.
18. In view of above discussion and reasons, I find merits
in this revision. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence of the petitioner passed by
the learned trial court and upheld by the appellate court is
hereby set aside and this revision is allowed .
19. Petitioner is on bail. As such, he is discharged from
the liability of bail bonds and sureties shall also discharged.
20. Pending I.A., if any stands disposed of.
21. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court
record be sent to the concerned court for information and
needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated : 29/06/2026
Sunil/-
AFR
Uploaded on 30/06/2026
10