Arvind Lal Gupta vs The State Of Jharkhand

2026:JHHC:31884


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 82 of 2016
------
Arvind Lal Gupta, Son of Ram Ratan Sahu, Resident of Village –
Kanchi, P.O. & P.S. – Bundu, District – Ranchi.
.... …. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Smt. Bina Kumari Sahu, W/o Arbind Lal Gupta, R/o Village –
I.B. Beshra Toli, NH-33, Bundu, P.O. & P.S. – Bundu, District –
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
.... .... Opp. Parties
------
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
Mr. Pravin Kumar, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Faisal Khan, Advocate.
Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan, Advocate.
------
JUDGMENT

CAV On Dated- 01.09.2026 Pronounced On 30.10.2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment
dated 04.01.2016 passed by learned Judicial Commissioner-II, Ranchi
in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2012, whereby and whereunder the
appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, upholding the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.2011
passed by learned S.D.J.M., Khunti in G.R. No. 340 of 2004 (arising
out of Bundu P.S. Case No. 48 of 2004), whereby the petitioner has
been convicted for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 ½ years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/-
with default stipulation.
1

2026:JHHC:31884


Factual Matrix

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that about 10 years
ago, the opposite party no. 2 / informant got married with Arvind
Lal Gupta (petitioner), according to the Hindu rites and rituals and
in the next year of her marriage, she gave birth of her first daughter
and then after 03 years, she gave birth of her second daughter. After
birth of second daughter, her husband, father-in-law, brother-in-law
and other in-laws’ persons also started harassing and torturing her.
They asked her to bring money from her father and brother so that
they could deposit Rs. 50 thousand in the name of each daughter in
the form of fixed deposit, for their marriage. On many occasions, she
took money from her father and brother in installments and gave the
same to her in-laws, but in spite of the same, the torture and
harassment did not stop. Her husband purchased a land in Bundu
and thereafter constructed a house on the said land with the financial
help of her father and brother. Thereafter, she along with her
husband started living at Bundu. Her husband and other in-laws’
persons used to abuse and beat her and also tried to kill her by
pressing her neck. Her husband used to threaten her of getting
second marriage. In the morning, on 13.07.2004, she was again
beaten by her husband and told her that until she will bring Rs.
50,000/- from her parental home or otherwise leave her matrimonial
house, he will not return home. Her husband also threatened to
implicate her and her family members in false cases. On the basis of
2

2026:JHHC:31884


the written report, Bundu P.S. Case No. 48/2004 was registered on
26.07.2004, under Sections 498A/34 of the I.P.C. against the four
accused persons including the petitioner.
4. The charge of investigation was handed over to S.I. R.P.
Paswan, who after investigation submitted charge-sheet under
Section 498A/34 of the I.P.C. against the accused persons and
accordingly, cognizance has been taken and thereafter, charges were
framed for the offence under Sections 498A / 34 of the I.P.C. on
18.01.2007 against the accused persons, to which they pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined altogether 06
witnesses namely,
P.W.-1 : Gopal Prasad Sahu.
P.W.-2 : Niraj Kumar.
P.W.-3 : Laxmi Narayan Gupta.
P.W.-4 : Smt. Bina Kumari Sahu (Informant).
P.W.-5 : S.I. Gupteshwar Singh (I.O.)
P.W.-6 : Digambar Mahato.
Apart from oral testimony of prosecution witnesses, following
documentary evidences have been adduced:-
Exhibit-1 : Written complaint lodged by Smt. Bina Kumari Sahu.
6. On the other hand, no witness has been examined on behalf of
defence, but the defence have adduced following documentary
evidences :-
3

2026:JHHC:31884


Exhibit-A – Certified copy of Bundu P.S. Case No. 95/09.
Exhibit-B – Certified copy of order dated 21.11.09 passed in Bundu
P.S. Case No. 95/09 (G.R. No. 3718/09).
Exhibit-C – Certified copy of order dated 23.8.10.
Exhibit-D – Certified copy of charge dated 23.08.10.
Exhibit-E – Certified copy of charge sheet no. 129/09 dated 31.10.09
submitted in Bundu P.S. Case No. 95/09.
7. After conclusion of trial, the learned trial court has acquitted
Ram Ratan Sahu (father-in-law), Ramesh Lal Gupta (brother-in-law)
and Sudarshan Gupta (brother-in-law) from the charges leveled
against them, but petitioner was held guilty for the offence under
Section 498A of the I.P.C. and sentenced, as stated above.
8. Thereafter, petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No. 18 of 2012
before the learned Judicial Commissioner-II, Ranchi, which was
dismissed vide judgment dated 04.01.2016, which has been assailed
in this revision.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
marriage between petitioner and opposite party no. 2 was
solemnized in the year 1994 and there is general and omnibus
allegation of demand and torture that is also after 10 years of her
marriage. It is further submitted that not a single independent
witness has supported the version of the informant. It is further
submitted that both the courts below should have considered the fact
that P.W.-2, 3 & 6 have not supported the prosecution case and P.W.-
4

2026:JHHC:31884


1 is a hearsay witness and his evidence is not admissible in the eyes
of law. It is further submitted that both the courts below have
ignored the documentary evidence adduced by the defence i.e.
Exhibit-A to E, which goes to show that the informant (P.W.-4) is still
living in her matrimonial house at Kanchi and she has brutally
assaulted her father-in-law, resulting into registration of criminal
case against her and due to fear of informant, the present petitioner
is compelled to live in another house and the informant is enjoying
the entire property of her husband i.e. the petitioner. It is further
submitted that on the same set of evidence, the other accused
persons have been acquitted by the learned trial court and only
because the petitioner happens to be husband, he has been convicted
by learned trial court and confirmed by the learned appellate court.
It is further submitted that out of 1½ year’s sentence, petitioner has
remained in custody for about two months. The petitioner has also
undergone the agony of protracted trial for more than 20 years.
Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the
trial court upheld by the appellate court may be set aside and this
revision may be allowed.
10. In alternative, it is pleaded that the petitioner has sufficiently
been punished during investigation and trial by remaining in
custody, which is proportionate to the facts proved against him. The
factum of cruelty proved against the petitioner, the petitioner
5

2026:JHHC:31884


deserves to be released on sentence of imprisonment already
undergone by him.
11. Learned APP on behalf of the State assisted by learned counsel
for the O.P. No. 2 has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions
raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that both the courts
below have concurrently recorded the finding of guilt of the
petitioner, who has subjected the opposite party no. 2 / informant, a
married lady to cruelty and harassment giving her physical assault
and mental trauma and without any reason, left her at her own
destiny along with two major children. The conviction and sentence
of petitioner is justified under law and so far quantum of sentence is
concerned in the facts and circumstances and conduct of the
petitioner shown against the opposite party no. 2 / informant
appears to be proportionate just and proper and this revision has no
merits and is fit to be dismissed.
12. I have gone through the record of the case and also perused
the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed
by the learned trial court as well as appellate court. It appears that it
is a case of matrimonial discord, which subsists about 10 years from
1994-2004. Admittedly, the opposite party no. 2 / wife along with
two major children is residing separately in her matrimonial home
itself. The divorce suit was also filed, but dismissed and no appeal
was preferred. The marriage between the parties proved infructuous
for all practical purposes touching the emotions and cordial
6

2026:JHHC:31884


relationship. Now the petitioner is aged about 65 years and retired
from services. Other co-accused jointly tried has been extended the
benefit of doubt and acquitted. The petitioner has remained in
custody for about 02 months during pendency of this revision, trial
and post-conviction.
13. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,
sending the petitioner again in judicial custody for serving the
remaining period of sentence out of R.I. of 1 ½ years awarded to him
would yield no useful purpose as a matter of deterrence. Therefore,
this revision is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence
to the extent that instead of awarding the sentence / imprisonment
as awarded by the learned trial court and confirmed by the learned
appellate court, the petitioner is sentenced to undergo imprisonment
for the period already undergone by him for the offence under
Section 498A of I.P.C.
14. Petitioner is on bail, as such, he shall be discharged from the
liability of bail bond and sureties shall also be discharged.
15. Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of.
16. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be
sent to the court concerned for information and needful.



(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated : 30/10/2026
Sunil/-NAFR
Uploaded On 30/10/2026
7