Sagiruddin Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand

C.A.V. on 07.07.2026 Pronounced on 11.08.2026

Heard the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner and Learned A.P.P. assisted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2.

The instant criminal revision is preferred against the judgment dated 12 January, 2015 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 229 of 2013 by the learned 6 Addl. Session Judge, Special Fast Track Court, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 05.06.2013 passed in Complaint Case No. 522 of 2011 by Learned J.M., 1 Class, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 498A of the I.P.C. with default stipulation. Factual Matrix:-

The factual matrix giving rise to this case is that the complainant was married with the present petitioner in the year 1999 in accordance with the Muslim Rites and Ceremonies and Rs. 40,000/- in cash and other house hold articles worth Rs. 1,00,000/- were given at the time of marriage. It is further alleged that the complainant gave birth of two daughters and since the year 2003, the accused started torturing the complainant physically and mentally demanding Rs. 5 Lakh for purchasing a piece of land. The father of the complainant somehow managed the said demand of Rs. 5 Lakh and the land was purchased in the name of complainant. Thereafter, the accused again started torturing his wife due to the reason that the land was purchased in the name of his wife. It is also alleged that on 05^th February, 2011, the accused tried to set his wife (complainant) on ablaze by pouring kerosene oil but the complainant somehow managed to save her and got fled away from the spot with her two daughters and the matter was reported to Police but no action was taken, then, she filed the complaint case. On the basis of the above complaint, Complaint Case No. 522 of 2011 was registered and after completion of the inquiry, the petitioner (accused) was summoned under Section 498-A of the IPC to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, altogether 3 witnesses were examined by the prosecution namely C.W.-1 Rahnuma Shahin, C.W.-2 Ghulam Ghaus Ansari and C.W.-3 Nikhat Shahin, complainant herself apart from documentary evidence. On the other hand, the defence has also examined one witness i.e. D.W.-1 Noor Mohammed apart from documentary evidence.

The learned trial Court after considering the evidence available on record held the petitioner guilty under Section 498-A of the IPC as sated above which was also affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. Submissions on behalf of petitioner: -

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned trial Court as well as appellate Court has failed to consider the fact that complainant came with a false story of cruelty against the petitioner and there was no subsisting marriage as on the date of the occurrence and the complainant got married to the petitioner in 1999 and the divorce was effected way back in 2006 and the complainant got married to one another person namely Md. Sagir in the year 2006. It is further submitted that the learned courts below has also failed to consider the fact that father of the complainant who allegedly paid Rs. 5,00,000/- was not examined in this case to substantiate this fact. It is also submitted that the complainant herself divorced the petitioner and solemnized her second marriage with one Md. Sagir who also divorced the complainant and again got married with this petitioner. It is further submitted that opposite party No. 2 is still residing in the house of the petitioner and petitioner is residing in a rental house separately with his sister. Therefore, the courts below have committed gross error of law in convicting the petitioner which is devoid of merits and fit to be set aside. Submissions on behalf of the State as well as Opp. Party No. 2:-

Per contra, Learned A.P.P. assisted by Opposite Party No. 2 has defended the judgment of learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court on merits by stating that the petitioner was torturing the complainant mentally and physically and demanding Rs. 5,00,000/- for purchase of a piece of land which was fulfilled by the father of the complainant and the purchased land was got registered in the name of complainant. Thereafter, the petitioner again tortured and assaulted the complainant for getting the said land transferred in his name. Therefore, the learned trial Court as well as appellate court by finding sufficient evidence against the petitioner rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner as stated above. Analysis, reasons and decision:

I have gone through the record of case along with impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court as well as trial Court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of respective parties.

From the evidence of witnesses, it appears that cruelty against the complainant has been well proved. The complainant and her daughter C.W.-1 Rahnuma Shahin, who is eye witness of the occurrence, have deposed as to how, the accused was subjecting cruelty on the complainant. The learned trial Court as well as appellate Court have meticulously considered all relevant evidence and exhibits and have rightly held the petitioner guilty. The learned appellate Court in appeal has considered all the contentions of the petitioner minutely with details and rightly upheld the guilt of the petitioner warranting no interference in this revision.

In the above facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner has rightly been held guilty for the offence committed by him, therefore, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 498-A of the IPC is affirmed.

So far as the sentence of the petitioner is concerned, it appears that the petitioner has remained in custody for four months and has suffered long agony of the trial and has sufficiently been punished for his guilt, hence, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner again in jail for sustaining the rest of the imprisonment. Hence, it appears expedient, for the ends of justice to modify/alter the sentence of the petitioner. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is modified to the extent of period already undergone by him.

In result, the instant criminal revision is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above.

Petitioner is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged.

Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.

Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

^{Basant /} NAFR