Samir Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand

C.A.V. on 06.07.2026 Pronounced on 11.08.2026

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

The instant criminal revision is preferred against the judgment dated 05.03.2010 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 140 of 2008 by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court No.-IV, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, the learned Appellate Court has upheld the judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the present petitioner dated 27.08.2008 passed in Complaint Case No. 183 of 1999 by Learned J.M., 1 Class, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 498A of the I.P.C. with default stipulation. Factual Matrix:-

The factual matrix giving rise to this case as disclosed in complaint case and reiterated in her statement on S.A. is that the complainant got married with Sameer Ansari (present petitioner) in accordance with the Muslim Rites and Ceremonies on 15.07.1997 and the amount of ‘Den Mohar’ was fixed at Rs. 5,000/- only. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, parents of the complainant gave ornaments, cloths, household articles worth Rs. 30,000/-. It is alleged that after the marriage, the accused kept his wife well for about six months and since January, 1998, the petitioner started assaulting his wife and asked her to bring Rs. 25,000/- from her parents and also pressurized her father to register 10 Decimals land in the name of the petitioner. It is alleged that when the complainant refused to fulfill the demand of his husband/petitioner, the petitioner turned her out from her matrimonial home. The parent of the complainant tried to pacify the matter and took his daughter to her matrimonial home in February, 1999 where she lived only for two days and threw her away from her matrimonial home by her husband by assaulting with fists and slaps and threatened with dire consequences if she returned to matrimonial home. The matter was reported to Police but the same was refused to be registered, hence she filed a complaint case. On the basis of the above complaint, Complaint Case No. 183 of 1999 was registered and after completion of the inquiry, the accused persons were summoned and the charges were framed under Section 498-A of the IPC. The accused persons pleaded to be innocent and false implication. In the course of trial, altogether 5 witnesses were examined by the prosecution namely C.W.-1 Mosarrat Khatoon, C.W.-2 Sarful Ansari and C.W.-3 Asma Khatoon, C.W.-4 Abdul Gaffar and C.W.-5 Siddique Ansari, apart from documentary evidence. On the other hand, the defence has also examined one witness i.e. D.W.-1 Rahim Ansari, apart from documentary evidence.

The learned trial Court after considering the evidence available on record held the petitioner and other accused persons guilty for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. On appeal filed by the accused persons, the learned Appellate Court has acquitted the other accused persons but upheld the conviction of the present petitioner, which is assailed in this revision. Submissions on behalf of petitioner: -

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to consider the fact that though it is alleged that there was a demand of dowry but cognizance was not taken for the offence under the provision of Dowry Prohibition Act and this ground was sufficient to set aside the conviction of the petitioner by the learned Appellate Court and both the Courts below have committed gross error of law in convicting the petitioner. It is further submitted that there is no injury report brought on record to substantiate that accused persons assaulted the complainant to meet the demand of dowry, rather, the petitioner had no motive to torture the complainant. It is also submitted that the learned appellate Court ought to have taken into consideration that the complainant had taken divorce, therefore, the appellate Court may have set aside the complaint case filed by the complainant implicating the petitioner falsely in matrimonial dispute. Hence, both the Courts below have committed illegality in convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. which is fit to be set aside by allowing this revision. Submissions on behalf of the State as well as Opp. Party No. 2:-

Per contra, Learned 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 both the Courts below have very wisely and aptly gone through the record of the case and rightly found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC and accordingly convicted and there is no merits in this revision which is fit to be dismissed. 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 including complainant (C.W.-1), the victim herself and her father, mother, uncle and maternal uncle it is proved that the complainant was meted with cruelty and torture due to non-fulfillment of demand of the petitioner and finally the complainant was ousted from her matrimonial home. The learned trial Court has rightly considered the evidence of the witnesses and has rightly convicted the petitioner. The learned appellate Court has also after going through the finding recorded by learned trial Court and finding some inconsistency in the evidence of the prosecution story with respect to torture and cruelty meted with the complainant by father-in-law, mother-in-law and Bhaisur has rightly extended the benefit of doubt to them and has considered all the contentions of the petitioner minutely with details and rightly upheld the guilt of the petitioner which warrants no interference in this revision.

In the above facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate Court aginst the petitioner under Section 498-A of the IPC is hereby affirmed.

So far as the sentence of the petitioner is concerned, it appears that the petitioner has remained in custody for five months and has suffered long agony of the trial and has sufficiently been punished for his guilt. It is also an admitted fact that divorce has been effected between the complainant and the accused (petitioner) and both of them are leading their own life, 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