Salkhan Hansda vs The State Of Jharkhand

Court
Jharkhand High Court

2026:JHHC:26754


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 552 of 2017
------
Salkhan Hansda, son of Sri Lal Hansda, resident of Village –
Paharpur, P.O. and P.S. – Potka, District – East Singhbhum.
.... …. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Lkhin Hansda, Wife of Salkhan Hansda, R/o Village –
Paharpur, P.O. and P.S. – Potka, District – East Singhbhum.
.... .... Opp. Parties
------
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Coram:
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. D.K. Karmakar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate.
------
JUDGMENT

CAV On Dated- 24.07.2026 Pronounced On - 03.09.2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present criminal revision is directed against the judgment
dated 21.01.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-V,
Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 2013, whereby and
whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been
dismissed and other co-convicts have been acquitted. The petitioner
along with two co-convicts were convicted by the learned Judicial
st
Magistrate, 1 Class, Jamshedpur vide judgment dated 19.12.2013
passed in G.R. Case No. 813 of 2007 and held them guilty for the
offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the

1

2026:JHHC:26754


Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for two years
and fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 498A of I.P.C.
and sentenced to undergo S.I. of six months and fine of Rs. 4,000/-
for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the
marriage of informant Lakhiya Hansda was solemnized with
petitioner Salkhan Hansda on 07.11.2005, as per custom and rites of
Schedule tribe. In the marriage, the parents of informant gave
Rs.20,000/- cash and other home appliances of Rs.30,000/-. On
06.07.2006, the husband of informant told her to bring a motorcycle
from her maika. The informant informed her mother about the
demand of motorcycle, but her mother shown her inability to give
the motorcycle. On 02.09.2006 at 5:00 PM, the husband, father-in-
law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law again demanded motorcycle and
threatened her that if she will not bring motorcycle within 15 days,
they will oust her. During that period, sister-in-law of informant
came to her maike and has also abused the informant and all of
them assaulted the informant. They have also stopped the food.
Ultimately, on 06.11.2006, husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law
and elder brother of husband assaulted her and ousted from the
house. The informant came to her maika and told about the
occurrence to her brother and mother. A meeting of villagers was
2

2026:JHHC:26754


held. In that meeting, the members of her sasural assured that no
such occurrence will be taken place in future. But again on
30.03.2007, they have assaulted to informant and ousted from
house.
4. On the basis of aforesaid written report, Potka P.S. Case No.
19 of 2007 was registered for the offence under Sections 498A, 323,
34 of I.P.C. and Section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against
seven accused persons including the petitioner.
5. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against all the
seven accused persons under the aforesaid offences. Thereafter,
charges were framed against the petitioner including co-accused
persons for the offences under Section 498A/34 and 323/34 of the
I.P.C. and Section 3 / 4 of the D.P. Act, to which they pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. After conclusion of trial, the trial court has acquitted four
accused persons and convicted the three accused persons including
petitioner for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced them, as
stated above.
7. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence of
petitioner and other two co-convict was challenged in Criminal
Appeal No. 73 of 2013 before the learned Additional Sessions
3

2026:JHHC:26754


Judge-V, Jamshedpur, which was heard and disposed of vide
judgment dated 21.01.2017, whereby the conviction and sentence of
the petitioner was upheld and confirmed, but the other two co-
convict have been acquitted, which has been assailed in this
revision.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial
court as well as learned appellate court has not appreciated the
evidence available on record. Admittedly, there was love marriage
between the petitioner and the informant. The marriage solemnized
according to Santhal rites and rituals and there is no such system of
giving or taking dowry either cash or any kind. The mother of the
informant, who has been examined as P.W.-1 has stated in her
evidence that the informant does not want to live with the petitioner
in her sasural.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that
petitioner has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for two years, out of
which he has already remained in custody for about 03 months
during trial of the case. It is further submitted that in the year 2005,
their marriage was solemnized and after 1½ years of marriage, the
informant lodged the instant case. It is also contended that no other
case was filed by the informant or by the present petitioner against
each other. It is also submitted that about two decades have been
4

2026:JHHC:26754


lapsed from the date of occurrence. The petitioner has suffered
agony of trial of the case for considerable period and has
sufficiently been punished for his guilt. Therefore, learned counsel
for the petitioner, without entering into the merits of the judgment,
has confined himself towards the quantum of sentence awarded to
him and prays for modification of the sentence awarded to the
petitioner to the period of custody already undergone by him .
10. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has defended the impugned
judgment on merits, but has fairly admitted that it is a case of the
year 2007 and there is concrete finding of guilt of the petitioner
recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court. So
far modification in sentence is concerned, in the factual aspect of
the case, appropriate order may be passed.
11. I have gone through the record of the case along with the
impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court as well as by
the learned appellate court. It appears that there is concurrent
finding of both the courts below about the guilt of the petitioner for
the offences punishable under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and
Section 4 of the D.P. Act. The finding of facts of the court below
appears to be correct, legal and proper, requiring no interference on
merits by way of this revision.
5

2026:JHHC:26754

12. So far sentence awarded to the petitioner is concerned,
admittedly out of two years of rigorous imprisonment, he has
sustained substantial part of the imprisonment to the extent of about
03 months.
13. It appears that the date of alleged occurrence was of the year
2006 and about two decades have been passed from the alleged
occurrence. The petitioner has sustained agony of trial for the
aforesaid period and has also served sentence for about 03 months.
The parties have settled in their own life and no other case is
pending against each other .
14. Under the aforementioned circumstances, in the interest of
justice, the imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner
appears to be sufficient punishment for the offence committed by
him.
15. In view of above discussion and reasons, impugned judgment
of conviction of the Court below is upheld on merits, but with
modification in sentence to the extent mentioned above, i.e., the
petitioner is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period

already undergone by him.
16. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed on merits with
modification in the sentence .

6

2026:JHHC:26754


17. Petitioner is on bail, as such, he shall be discharged from the
liability of bail bond and sureties shall also be discharged.
18. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be
sent to the concerned trial court for information and needful.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated : 03/09/2026
Sunil/-
NAFR
Uploaded On 05/09/2026

7