{"id":87540,"date":"2011-08-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-prasad-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-30-august-2011-2"},"modified":"2014-04-20T02:09:49","modified_gmt":"2014-04-19T20:39:49","slug":"satya-narayan-prasad-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-30-august-2011-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-prasad-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-30-august-2011-2","title":{"rendered":"Satya Narayan Prasad Sinha & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 30 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court<\/div>\n
Satya Narayan Prasad Sinha & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 30 August, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Amaresh Kumar Lal<\/div>\n
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA\n\n           Criminal Revision No.302 of 2002\n\n          (Against the judgment and order\n          dated 25th January 2002 passed\n          by the learned Sessions Judge,\n          Begusarai in Cr. Appeal No. 10\n          of 2001)\n\n=======================================================\n<\/pre>\n
1. Satya Narayan Prasad Sinha son of late Nand Kishore
\n   Prasad.\n<\/p>\n
2. Bachhi Devi wife of Satya Narayan Pd. Sinha.\n<\/p>\n
3. Krishna Murari Sinha.\n<\/p>\n
4. Krishna Kanhaiya Kumar Sinha.\n<\/p>\n
5. Krishna Gopal Sinha all sons of Satya Narayan Prasad
\n   Sinha.\n<\/p>\n
   All residents of Jeetwarpur Railway Colony, Qr. No.
\n   166B Samastipur, P.S. and Dist. Samastipur.\n<\/p>\n
                            ....  ....    Petitioner\/s\n                         Versus\n1. State Of Bihar\n<\/pre>\n
2. Sushila Devi daughter of Late Ram Chandra Prasad,
\nresident of village Ajhaur, P.S. Neema Chandpura,
\nDistrict Begusarai.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                         ….   ….   Opposite Party\/s
\n                         with<\/p>\n
           Criminal Revision No. 354 of 2002
\n=======================================================
\nKrishna Kumar Sinha son of Satya Narayan Prasad Sinha,
\nresident of Jeetwarpur Rail Colony Qr. No. 166B,
\nSamastipur, P.S. and District- Samastipur.\n<\/p>\n
                             ….   ….   Petitioner\/s
\n                         Versus\n<\/p>\n
1. The State Of Bihar\n<\/p>\n
2. Sushila Devi daughter of Late Ram Chandra Prasad,
\n   resident of village- Ajhaur, P.S. Neema Chandpura,
\n   District- Bugusarai.\n<\/p>\n
                          ….    …. Opposite party\/s
\n=======================================================
\nAppearance :\n<\/p>\n
(In CR. REV. No. 302 of 2002)
\n(In CR. REV. No. 354 of 2002)<\/p>\n
For the Petitioner\/s   : Mr. Pramod Manbash, Adv.<\/p>\n
For the Opposite
\nParty\/s                : Mr. Vijay Kr @ VKS Singh,
\n         Patna High Court CR. REV. No.302 of 2002 dt.30-08-2011                                2<\/p>\n
                                              Adv.\n<\/p>\n
                                      : Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, APP.\n<\/p>\n
             =======================================================
\n                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL<\/p>\n
                                                ORAL JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                    (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL)<\/p>\n
Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.                     Cr. Revision No. 302 of 2002 and Cr.<\/p>\n
                           Revision No. 354 of 2002 arise out of judgment<\/p>\n
                           and order dated 25th January 2002 passed by<\/p>\n
                           the learned Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Cr.<\/p>\n
                           Appeal No. 10 of 2001 by which the appeal has<\/p>\n
                           been       dismissed         with     modification    in     the<\/p>\n
                           sentences         to     the     effect   that   in   case    of<\/p>\n
                           default of payment of fine on the part of the<\/p>\n
                           appellants, instead of rigorous imprisonment<\/p>\n
                           for a period of one month each, they shall<\/p>\n
                           undergo simple imprisonment for a period of<\/p>\n
                           one      month,        as      such   both   these    revision<\/p>\n
                           applications have been heard together and are<\/p>\n
                           being disposed of by this common judgment.<\/p>\n
                                           2. Cr. Revision No. 302 of 2002 has<\/p>\n
                           been filed by the relatives of the husband of<\/p>\n
                           the complainant, whereas, Cr. Revision No. 354<\/p>\n
                           of 2002 has been filed by the husband of the<\/p>\n
                           complainant, opposite party no. 2 in both the<\/p>\n
                           revision applications.\n<\/p>\n
                                          3.        The prosecution case, in brief,
\n Patna High Court CR. REV. No.302 of 2002 dt.30-08-2011                                     3<\/p>\n
                   is that the complainant-opposite party no. 2<\/p>\n
                   was      married        to      Krishna      Kumar     Sinha,     the<\/p>\n
                   petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 354 of 2002                        on<\/p>\n
                   12.6.1987          according          to     ‘Vaidik’      rituals.<\/p>\n
                   During the course of marriage, the mother and<\/p>\n
                   the brother of the complainant presented 10<\/p>\n
                   ‘Bhar’        gold       ornaments,        20     ‘Bhar’      silver<\/p>\n
                   ornaments          and       several       utensils          to   the<\/p>\n
                   petitioners           but       in     spite      of    that      the<\/p>\n
                   petitioners started demanding Rs.25000\/- and a<\/p>\n
                   scooter. She was subjected to various types of<\/p>\n
                   torture for the fulfillment of the demand. She<\/p>\n
                   went to her matrimonial home after marriage<\/p>\n
                   and returned to her Naihar after a period of 9<\/p>\n
                   days. She again went to her Sasural Jitwarpur<\/p>\n
                   Railway        Colony        within    the      town   and    police<\/p>\n
                   station of Samastipur on the eve of Dashahara<\/p>\n
                   and stayed there for three months. During the<\/p>\n
                   period of 1988-89, she remained in her sasural<\/p>\n
                   for a period of about nine months. During this<\/p>\n
                   period,        the      petitioners        always      abused     and<\/p>\n
                   assaulted her for dowry. They also threatened<\/p>\n
                   to     kill       her      if     their      demands     are      not<\/p>\n
                   fulfilled. In the month of Aasin, 1989, she<\/p>\n
                   returned to her Naihar with her brother. In<\/p>\n
                   the meantime, in the year 1988 the husband and
\n Patna High Court CR. REV. No.302 of 2002 dt.30-08-2011                                     4<\/p>\n
                   mother-in-law            of     the     complainant       wrote     a<\/p>\n
                   letter to the mother of the complainant with<\/p>\n
                   threatening and the demand of motor-cycle was<\/p>\n
                   exactly repeated.              On 28.1.1990 the father-in-<\/p>\n
                   law of the complainant sent a letter to the<\/p>\n
                   complainant           through         Krishna    Murari     Sinha,<\/p>\n
                   Debar that her mother-in-law was seriously ill<\/p>\n
                   and had been admitted in the railway hospital<\/p>\n
                   and asked her to come there for looking after<\/p>\n
                   her. She immediately went to Samastipur with<\/p>\n
                   her Dewar and rendered the services to her<\/p>\n
                   mother-in-law.                The      mother-in-law        became<\/p>\n
                   perfectly         well,       thereafter,       the    petitioners<\/p>\n
                   again      started        assaulting       and    torturing       the<\/p>\n
                   complainant. After 6-7 months, the complainant<\/p>\n
                   was     ousted        from     her    matrimonial       home.     She<\/p>\n
                   returned to her mother’s home alone. It has<\/p>\n
                   further been alleged that she was not directed<\/p>\n
                   to     take       her      ornaments       and        cloths.     The<\/p>\n
                   relatives of Naihar of the complainant tried<\/p>\n
                   to    make      the     petitioners        understand      but     in<\/p>\n
                   vain. Immediately before filing the complaint<\/p>\n
                   petition the complainant came to know that her<\/p>\n
                   husband, petitioner of Cr. Revision No. 354 of<\/p>\n
                   2002      has     eloped       with    a   married      girl.     The<\/p>\n
                   complainant suffered mental agony and in her
\n Patna High Court CR. REV. No.302 of 2002 dt.30-08-2011                                      5<\/p>\n
                   helplessness           and     inhuman         behaviour    of     the<\/p>\n
                   petitioners drove her to commit suicide,                           she<\/p>\n
                   has to file the petition of complaint. The<\/p>\n
                   complainant           is     living      with    her     mother    and<\/p>\n
                   brother and has also lost her mental balance.<\/p>\n
                   She filed complaint case no. 406 C of 1994 in<\/p>\n
                   the       Court         of        learned       Chief      Judicial<\/p>\n
                   Magistrate, Begusarai on 8.6.1994.<\/p>\n
                                    4.        After taking the statement of<\/p>\n
                   the     complainant          on       solemn    affirmation,       the<\/p>\n
                   case was transferred to the Court of SDJM.<\/p>\n
                   After enquiry, the petitioners were summoned.<\/p>\n
                   Later on, after trial the husband-accused has<\/p>\n
                   been convicted under Section 498 A                          IPC and<\/p>\n
                   sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for<\/p>\n
                   a period of three years and to pay a fine of<\/p>\n
                   Rs.500\/- and in default of payment thereof he<\/p>\n
                   has further been directed to undergo rigorous<\/p>\n
                   imprisonment for a period of one month. The<\/p>\n
                   other petitioners have also been convicted for<\/p>\n
                   the offence punishable under Section 498 A IPC<\/p>\n
                   and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment<\/p>\n
                   for a period of one year each and to pay a<\/p>\n
                   fine      of     Rs.200\/-         each    and     in     default    of<\/p>\n
                   payment         thereof           to           undergo      rigorous<\/p>\n
                   imprisonment for a period of                     one month each.
\n Patna High Court CR. REV. No.302 of 2002 dt.30-08-2011                                         6<\/p>\n
                   Thereafter, the accused- petitioners preferred<\/p>\n
                   Cr. Appeal No. 10 of 2001 in the Court of<\/p>\n
                   learned Sessions Judge. After hearing both the<\/p>\n
                   parties, the appeal has been dismissed with<\/p>\n
                   modification in the sentence that in case of<\/p>\n
                   default        in    paying          fine     they     would    undergo<\/p>\n
                   simple       imprisonment               for   one     month    and   the<\/p>\n
                   other sentences remained unaltered and were<\/p>\n
                   confirmed. Thereafter, all the accused except<\/p>\n
                   the husband of the complainant have filed Cr.<\/p>\n
                   Revision        No.       302      of    2002    and    the    husband-<\/p>\n
                   accused has filed Cr. Revision No. 354 of 2002<\/p>\n
                   as aforesaid.\n<\/p>\n
                                   5.        Heard learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
                   petitioners and learned counsel for opposite<\/p>\n
                   party no.2.\n<\/p>\n
                                   6.        The      learned       counsel       for   the<\/p>\n
                   petitioners has assailed the impugned judgment<\/p>\n
                   and       order           on       three        grounds,        namely,<\/p>\n
                   territorial            jurisdiction,                limitation       and<\/p>\n
                   cruelty.\n<\/p>\n
                                  7.         It       has    been       submitted       that\n\n                   according            to        the       complaint       case,       the\n\n<\/pre>\n
                   complainant was tortured by the petitioners<\/p>\n
                   for fulfillment of their demand of dowry of<\/p>\n
                   Rs.25000\/-          and        a   scooter      and    later    on   the
\n Patna High Court CR. REV. No.302 of 2002 dt.30-08-2011                                             7<\/p>\n
                   demand was made for money and motor -cycle.<\/p>\n
                   According              to      complaint           petition,              the<\/p>\n
                   complainant went to her sasural at Samastipur<\/p>\n
                   with the petitioner, Krishna Murari Sinha in<\/p>\n
                   pursuance to letter dated 28.1.1990 to look<\/p>\n
                   after her mother-in-law. She went there and<\/p>\n
                   looked after her mother-in-law and when she<\/p>\n
                   recovered, all the accused again tortured her.<\/p>\n
                   She     remained         in    her     Sasural      and    after         6-7<\/p>\n
                   months       she       was    ousted        from her matrimonial<\/p>\n
                   home      meaning           thereby     she       returned       to       her<\/p>\n
                   mother’s          house       in      the    year    1990        itself,<\/p>\n
                   whereas,          the       complaint-        petition         has       been<\/p>\n
                   filed        on   8.6.1994         after      a   period       of    three<\/p>\n
                   years as such the learned Magistrate should<\/p>\n
                   not have taken cognizance as the period of<\/p>\n
                   limitation         has       expired        and   secondly          on    the<\/p>\n
                   ground that the complaint case has been filed<\/p>\n
                   in the Session Division at Begusarai, whereas,<\/p>\n
                   the occurrence has taken place in the session<\/p>\n
                   division          of    Samastipur.          In    support       of       his<\/p>\n
                   contention he has referred to the decision of<\/p>\n
                   Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Modi vs.<\/p>\n
                   Sanjay Jain & Ors, reported in [2009] ACR 715<\/p>\n
                   in which it has been held that cause of action<\/p>\n
                   is       a        fundamental           element           to         confer
\n Patna High Court CR. REV. No.302 of 2002 dt.30-08-2011                                   8<\/p>\n
                   jurisdiction upon any Court and                      which has to<\/p>\n
                   be proved by plaintiff to support his right to<\/p>\n
                   a     judgment        of      the     Court.    To     constitute<\/p>\n
                   territorial jurisdiction, whole or a part of<\/p>\n
                   cause       of     action       must    have    arisen     within<\/p>\n
                   territorial           jurisdiction       of    Court    and    same<\/p>\n
                   must be decided on basis of averments made in<\/p>\n
                   complaint without embarking upon an enquiry as<\/p>\n
                   to correctness or otherwise of said facts. If<\/p>\n
                   Court is prima facie of opinion that whole or<\/p>\n
                   a part of cause of action has arisen in its<\/p>\n
                   jurisdiction, it can certainly take cognizance<\/p>\n
                   of complaint. There is no need to ascertain<\/p>\n
                   that allegations made are true in fact.<\/p>\n
                                    8.          Learned      counsel       for     the<\/p>\n
                   petitioners has further submitted that even if<\/p>\n
                   the cognizance has been taken after the period<\/p>\n
                   of limitation, the learned Magistrate should<\/p>\n
                   have applied its mind and should have condoned<\/p>\n
                   the delay but in this case the delay has not<\/p>\n
                   been condoned under Section 478 Cr.P.C. and on<\/p>\n
                   this      ground        also      the   cognizance       and    the<\/p>\n
                   proceeding are not in accordance with law. In<\/p>\n
                   support of his contention, he has relied upon<\/p>\n
                   a decision of Supreme Court in the case of<\/p>\n
                   Sanapareddy Maheedhar and Anr. Vs. State of
\n Patna High Court CR. REV. No.302 of 2002 dt.30-08-2011                                         9<\/p>\n
                   Andhra Pradesh & Anr., reported in [2008] ACR<\/p>\n
                   405     in    which      it    has     been       held    that    while<\/p>\n
                   considering the applicability of Section 468<\/p>\n
                   to    the     complaints          made    by      the     victims     of<\/p>\n
                   matrimonial          offences,         the     Court      can    invoke<\/p>\n
                   Section       473      and    can     take     cognizance        of   an<\/p>\n
                   offence         after        expiry      of       the     period       of<\/p>\n
                   limitation           keeping      in     view      the     nature      of<\/p>\n
                   allegations, the time taken by the police in<\/p>\n
                   investigation and the fact that the offence of<\/p>\n
                   cruelty is a continuing offence and affects<\/p>\n
                   the society at large. To put it differently,<\/p>\n
                   in cases involving matrimonial offences the<\/p>\n
                   Court should not adopt a narrow and pedantic<\/p>\n
                   approach         and     should,        in     the       interest     of<\/p>\n
                   justice,          liberally           exercise          power     under<\/p>\n
                   Section          473       for        extending          period       of<\/p>\n
                   limitation.\n<\/p>\n
                                   9.        Learned        appellate         court      has<\/p>\n
                   dealt        with      the       point       of     limitation        in<\/p>\n
                   paragraph 19 of its judgment which reads as<\/p>\n
                   follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                                             “19. ….. It appears
\n                                  from the petition of complaint
\n                                  that some days before filing of
\n                                  the   complaint   petition,   the
\n                                  complainant came to know that
\n                                  her   husband   eloped   with   a
\n                                  married   lady.  She   has   also
\n                                  stated    about    it   in    her
\n Patna High Court CR. REV. No.302 of 2002 dt.30-08-2011                             10<\/p>\n
                                  deposition, which was the cause
\n                                  of her frustration and which
\n                                  resulted into filing of the
\n                                  petition of complaint by her. In
\n                                  this view of the matter, it
\n                                  cannot    be   said     that   the
\n                                  complaint     is     barred     by
\n                                  limitation. Moreover, it has
\n                                  been held in the case of Arun
\n                                  Vyas versus Anita Vyas reported
\n                                  in 2000(1) BBCJ, IV-32 that the
\n                                  bar to taking cognizance after
\n                                  the period of limitation where a
\n                                  wife complaints that she has
\n                                  been subjected to cruelty in
\n                                  terms of section 498 A of the
\n                                  I.P.C,   the   court    may   take
\n                                  cognizance of an offence, even
\n                                  after   expiry   of    period   of
\n                                  limitation in the interest of
\n                                  justice and Section 473 of the
\n                                  Cr.P.C.   should   be    construed
\n                                  liberally in such a case.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                   10.        In     this   case,   it   has    been\n\n                   noticed       that      the     action   of   torture   to    the\n\n<\/pre>\n
                   complainant was started by the petitioners in<\/p>\n
                   the matrimonial house of the complainant at<\/p>\n
                   Samastipur and it continued. The complainant<\/p>\n
                   was in hope that the matter would be settled<\/p>\n
                   amicably but she lost her hope for amicable<\/p>\n
                   settlement between herself and the petitioners<\/p>\n
                   at large. The action of the accused husband<\/p>\n
                   gave a death blow to her hope and she was<\/p>\n
                   given a mental cruelty in the year 1994 when<\/p>\n
                   she came to know that her husband eloped with<\/p>\n
                   a married lady. Learned trial court has also<\/p>\n
                   dealt this matter in its judgment in paragraph
\n Patna High Court CR. REV. No.302 of 2002 dt.30-08-2011                               11<\/p>\n
                   8    and     9.     In    paragraph       23   of    her    cross-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   examination, the complainant has stated that<\/p>\n
                   when she came to know that her husband eloped<\/p>\n
                   with       Manju Singh, wife of Rabindra Singh, son<\/p>\n
                   of Sipahi Jee, she has taken shelter of the<\/p>\n
                   Court. In this view of the matter, it cannot<\/p>\n
                   be said that the occurrence of torture has<\/p>\n
                   been within the jurisdiction at Samastipur and<\/p>\n
                   no cause of action has arisen at Begusarai<\/p>\n
                   where the complaint case was filed. When the<\/p>\n
                   petitioner         was     ousted     from     her   matrimonial<\/p>\n
                   home, she took             shelter in her mother’s hosue<\/p>\n
                   at      Begusarai          in     which      jurisdiction      the<\/p>\n
                   complaint case was lodged.                     Considering the<\/p>\n
                   facts        and         circumstances,        the     decisions<\/p>\n
                   referred to above reported in [2009] ACR 715<\/p>\n
                   and [2008] ACR 405 (supra) do not help the<\/p>\n
                   petitioners, rather they are helpful to the<\/p>\n
                   complainant.\n<\/p>\n
                                     11.      Learned        counsel     for      the<\/p>\n
                   petitioners has submitted that for assailing<\/p>\n
                   the judgment now the third ground cruelty has<\/p>\n
                   been made. He has submitted that there has<\/p>\n
                   been no occurrence of cruelty as defined in<\/p>\n
                   Section 498 A IPC there has been no occurrence<\/p>\n
                   which      could        lead    the   complainant     to    commit
\n Patna High Court CR. REV. No.302 of 2002 dt.30-08-2011                                  12<\/p>\n
                   suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to<\/p>\n
                   life,       limb      or      health    whether       mental    or<\/p>\n
                   physical of the complainant. In support of his<\/p>\n
                   contention he has referred to a decision of<\/p>\n
                   the Supreme Court in the case of Manju Ram<\/p>\n
                   Kalita vs. State of Assam,<\/a> reported in [2009]<\/p>\n
                   ACR 882.\n<\/p>\n
                                  12.       Learned      lower   appellate      Court<\/p>\n
                   has dealt with this mater in paragraph 16 and<\/p>\n
                   18 of its judgment which reads as follows;-<\/p>\n
                                             “16. …… I find that
\n                                  the complainant has named all
\n                                  the    appellants,       who    had
\n                                  subjected her to torture for
\n                                  their   demand   of     money   and
\n                                  scooter.   There     is    specific
\n                                  overtact alleged against the
\n                                  appellant nos. 1 to 4. The
\n                                  learned lower court has rightly
\n                                  taken a lenient view so far the
\n                                  in-laws of the complainant are
\n                                  concerned      while       awarding
\n                                  sentence to them.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                              18.    The      learned
\n                                  counsel for the appellants has
\n                                  also    submitted      that     the
\n                                  appellant nos. 2 to 6 are
\n                                  residing separately from the
\n                                  appellant no. 1. I find that
\n                                  there is no such evidence on
\n                                  record.    From   the     different
\n                                  letters proved in this case, it
\n                                  appears that all the appellants
\n                                  are living together at Jitwarpur
\n                                  Railway   Colony   in    the   same
\n                                  house.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                  13.       Learned      trial   court    has     also<\/p>\n
                   dealt with this matter and has found that the
\n Patna High Court CR. REV. No.302 of 2002 dt.30-08-2011                                   13<\/p>\n
                   victim- complainant has also stated that the<\/p>\n
                   accused were torturing her and they also asked<\/p>\n
                   to sleep her in the bathroom and used to give<\/p>\n
                   stale      food      to    eat        and   torture    and   lastly<\/p>\n
                   immediately before filing of the complaint she<\/p>\n
                   came to know that the husband Krishna Kumar<\/p>\n
                   Sinha has eloped with a married lady and it<\/p>\n
                   gave her mental shock and the cruelty is of<\/p>\n
                   such a nature as is likely to drive a women to<\/p>\n
                   commit suicide. An Indian married woman does<\/p>\n
                   not want that in her life time her husband<\/p>\n
                   should marry to another lady or eloped with<\/p>\n
                   another lady. Certainly this type of cruelty<\/p>\n
                   comes within the definition of Section 498 A<\/p>\n
                   IPC. The word ‘cruelty’ has been dealt with in<\/p>\n
                   paragraph         22      of   the      judgment      reported   in<\/p>\n
                   [2009]        ACR      882       (supra)      which     reads    as<\/p>\n
                   follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                                             “22.    “Cruelty” for
\n                                  the purpose of Section 498 A IPC
\n                                  is to be established in the
\n                                  context of Section 498 A IPC as
\n                                  it may be a different from other
\n                                  statutory provisions. It is to
\n                                  be   determined   \/inferred   by
\n                                  considering the conduct of the
\n                                  man, weighing the gravity or
\n                                  seriousness of his acts and to
\n                                  find out as to whether it is
\n                                  likely to drive the woman to
\n                                  commit suicide, etc. It is to be
\n                                  established that the woman has
\n                                  been   subjected    to   cruelty
\n                                  continuously\/persistently or at
\n Patna High Court CR. REV. No.302 of 2002 dt.30-08-2011                                          14<\/p>\n
                                  lest in close proximity of time
\n                                  of lodging the complaint. Petty
\n                                  quarrels cannot be terms as
\n                                  \u201ecruelty\u201f    to   attract    the
\n                                  provisions of Section 498 A IPC.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n                                  Causing mental torture to the\n                                  extent     that    it    becomes\n                                  unbearable   may  be  terms   as\n                                  cruelty.\"\n\n                                  14.        Considering          the     facts           and\n\n<\/pre>\n
                   circumstances of the case, I find that cruelty<\/p>\n
                   has     been        made     to   the     complainant            by     the<\/p>\n
                   petitioners           and     the      decision       reported          in<\/p>\n
                   [2009]        ACR    882     (supra)      does       not    help       the<\/p>\n
                   petitioners.           The     petitioners          have    not       been<\/p>\n
                   able to make any ground for interference with<\/p>\n
                   the impugned judgment and order passed by the<\/p>\n
                   learned trial court as well as the learned<\/p>\n
                   Appellate Court.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                   15.        Lastly, the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
                   the petitioners has submitted that the main<\/p>\n
                   allegation          is     against       the    husband          Krishna<\/p>\n
                   Kumar Sinha, petitioner in Cr. Revision No.<\/p>\n
                   354      of     2002        and       there    is     no     specific<\/p>\n
                   allegation           of     overtact      against          the        other<\/p>\n
                   petitioners. Therefore, the other petitioners<\/p>\n
                   may be given the benefit under Section 360<\/p>\n
                   Cr.P.C. The occurrence has also taken place in<\/p>\n
                   the year 1990 and more than 20 years have<\/p>\n
                   passed and the petitioners have been suffering
\n       Patna High Court CR. REV. No.302 of 2002 dt.30-08-2011                                       15<\/p>\n
                         from mental agony.\n<\/p>\n
                                        16.        Learned            counsel     for        the<\/p>\n
                         opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the<\/p>\n
                         complainant          is      still         suffering   from    mental<\/p>\n
                         agony and the petitioners have ruined her life<\/p>\n
                         and they do not deserve any leniency and their<\/p>\n
                         sentence is not fit to be interfered. They do<\/p>\n
                         not     deserve        any     leniency        under Section        360<\/p>\n
                         Cr.P.C. It has also been submitted that the<\/p>\n
                         husband of the complaint is leading conjugal<\/p>\n
                         life with another lady, and other petitioners<\/p>\n
                         and the complainant is suffering and leading a<\/p>\n
                         miserable         life       due      to    torture    made    by   the<\/p>\n
                         petitioners and she has not still married to<\/p>\n
                         any person.\n<\/p>\n
                                         17.       Considering            the    facts       and<\/p>\n
                         circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, I<\/p>\n
                         do not find any ground to interfere with the<\/p>\n
                         impugned judgment and order of conviction.<\/p>\n
                                          18.      In       the      result,     both    these<\/p>\n
                         revision applications are dismissed.<\/p>\n
Patna High Court                                       (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)
\nDated 30th of August 2011
\nN.A.F.R\/Kanchan\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court Satya Narayan Prasad Sinha & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 30 August, 2011 Author: Amaresh Kumar Lal IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.302 of 2002 (Against the judgment and order dated 25th January 2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Cr. Appeal […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-87540","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSatya Narayan Prasad Sinha & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-prasad-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-30-august-2011-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Satya Narayan Prasad Sinha & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-prasad-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-30-august-2011-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-04-19T20:39:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-prasad-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-30-august-2011-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-prasad-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-30-august-2011-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Satya Narayan Prasad Sinha & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 30 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-19T20:39:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-prasad-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-30-august-2011-2\"},\"wordCount\":2883,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-prasad-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-30-august-2011-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-prasad-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-30-august-2011-2\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-prasad-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-30-august-2011-2\",\"name\":\"Satya Narayan Prasad Sinha & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-19T20:39:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-prasad-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-30-august-2011-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-prasad-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-30-august-2011-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-prasad-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-30-august-2011-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Satya Narayan Prasad Sinha & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 30 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Satya Narayan Prasad Sinha & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-prasad-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-30-august-2011-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Satya Narayan Prasad Sinha & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-prasad-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-30-august-2011-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-04-19T20:39:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-prasad-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-30-august-2011-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-prasad-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-30-august-2011-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Satya Narayan Prasad Sinha & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 30 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-19T20:39:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-prasad-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-30-august-2011-2"},"wordCount":2883,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-prasad-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-30-august-2011-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-prasad-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-30-august-2011-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-prasad-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-30-august-2011-2","name":"Satya Narayan Prasad Sinha & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-19T20:39:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-prasad-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-30-august-2011-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-prasad-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-30-august-2011-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narayan-prasad-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-30-august-2011-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Satya Narayan Prasad Sinha & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 30 August, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/87540","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=87540"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/87540\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=87540"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=87540"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=87540"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}