IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.876 of 2010
Rajesh Kumar Yadav Son of Late Ramadhar Yadav R/O vill.- Pachpatra,
P.S. Ravilganj, Dist. Saran.
--- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Deonath Yadav son of Late Mangal Yadav R/o vill. Sarkhel Par P.S.
Daudpur, Dist. Saran
---- Informant/Opp.Parties.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nirmal Kr. Sinha No.3, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Amarendra Kr. Sinha, APP
For the O.P. no.2 : Mr. Anant Kumar Bhaskar,Advocate.
-----------
02 24.06.2010 Heard both sides.
Petitioner, who is husband, questions the legality of
the appellate order dated 6th March 2010, passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge IIIrd, Saran at Chapra in Cr. Appeal no.
64 of 2007, whereby the appeal so far as the petitioner is
concerned has been dismissed with modification in sentence.
Petitioner along with his other family members such
as mother, father and brother were put on trial for an offence(s)
punishable under Sections 498A/34, 323, 325 and ¾ of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. At the trial six witnesses including, the victim
were examined to substantiate the charges/allegations. The
defence, however, did not examine any witness. On a
consideration of the materials available on record, the learned trial
Court found and held that the prosecution has successfully proved
the charges punishable under Sections 498 A and 323 of the Penal
Code. Accordingly, petitioner herein (husband) was sentenced to
undergo R.I. for three years under Section 498A of the Penal Code
2
and a fine of Rs. five thousand with default clause was also
imposed. The petitioner was also convicted under Section 323 of
the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months.
Petitioner along with other convicts preferred the aforesaid appeal.
Learned appellate Court, on reappraisal of the evidence available
on record, found and held that the evidence against other family
members was/were frugal and/or deficient. Accordingly the
mother, father and brother of the petitioner herein were given the
benefit of doubt and acquitted of all the charges. So far as the
present petitioner is concerned, the Court found as under:-
“….Accused Rajesh has re-married
during the course of trial and now the evidence of
victim and other P.W.s who are close relative were
in position to look all the affairs regarding manner
of the occurrence, resegaste and all the episode as
such in absence of independent witnesses their
evidence can not be brushed aside. The evidence of
sole victim is sufficient that one accused Rajesh
severely assaulted the victim and has made cruelty
and due to fear and assault she left her Sasural…..”
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
witnesses are interested. The law is settled that the Court has to
examine an interested witness with due care and caution. Here is a
case where both the Courts below has considered the evidence on
record carefully and has come to a definite conclusion that the
charge of cruelty and ouster at the hands of the present petitioner
has been duly proved. There is no merit in the application.
It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)