Jharkhand HC Restores Section 498A Conviction Against Husband After Appellate Court Wrongly Acquitted Him

The Jharkhand High Court reversed an appellate court's acquittal of a husband under Section 498A IPC, finding the Sessions Court had ignored clinching evidence of dowry-linked cruelty while imposing an unwarranted insistence on documentary proof.

Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava of the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi, sitting singly, on 11 August 2026 restored the conviction of Sanjay Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code — a conviction that the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamshedpur had set aside on appeal in August 2016. The High Court found that the appellate court had arrived at findings that were “based on conjecture and surmises” and had improperly demanded police records or documentary evidence of prior assaults before accepting the victim's oral testimony. The husband's conviction under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which the Sessions Court had upheld, was left undisturbed. A companion revision filed by the complainant-wife against the co-accused relatives was partly allowed to the limited extent of restoring the Section 498A conviction against the husband alone.

The Two Revisions Before the High Court

Two criminal revisions, both arising from a common trial court order, were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. Cr. Revision No. 1465 of 2016 was filed by the husband, Sanjay Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar, challenging the Sessions Court's decision to uphold his conviction under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act even as it acquitted him of the Section 498A charge. Cr. Revision No. 23 of 2017 was filed by the complainant and wife, Sushma Devi, challenging the appellate court's acquittal of the husband under Section 498A IPC and the acquittal of three co-accused relatives — mother-in-law Ram Sakhi Devi, sister-in-law Asha Devi, and Asha Devi's husband Binod Paswan — from both charges.

One procedural development arose at the outset: Ram Sakhi Devi, one of the opposite parties in Cr. Revision No. 23 of 2017, had died during the pendency of the revision. The High Court recorded that the revision stood abated to that extent, and the remaining surviving opposite parties were renumbered accordingly.

The Underlying Facts

Sushma Devi, holding an MA degree in political science, married Sanjay Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar on 12 March 2007 as per Hindu rites. At the time of an engagement ceremony held at Jamshedpur, the complainant's father paid Rs. 2.50 lakhs to the accused — Rs. 50,000 in cash and the balance through two SBI demand drafts of Rs. 1 lakh each. Jewelry, silver and gold, along with household and electronic articles worth Rs. 3 lakhs were also presented.

According to the prosecution's case, trouble began within a week of the marriage. The husband openly declared he disliked the complainant because of her dark complexion and, along with the other accused, began demanding Rs. 2 lakhs as additional dowry. When the complainant's father visited the matrimonial home and expressed his inability to pay the full amount, he nonetheless paid Rs. 50,000 cash to the accused persons. Despite this, the demands continued and the complainant was subjected to physical assault and denial of food and other necessities.

On the night of 15 April 2007, the complainant was assaulted by her husband, sister-in-law Asha Devi, and brother-in-law Binod Paswan, and was driven out of the matrimonial home. She took shelter at her parental home in Jamshedpur. During the Dussehra festival of 2007, the husband and the two relatives came to Jamshedpur and assaulted her again in the presence of her parents. After a panchayat-style settlement was convened, she returned to the matrimonial home on 21 November 2007 on an undertaking from the accused that there would be no further dispute, but the torture resumed almost immediately over the remaining Rs. 1.50 lakhs.

In December 2007, the complainant's father rented a house from one Shambhu Sharan Sharma at Govindpur to provide a neutral residence for both parties. The complainant moved in with her husband there, but within two weeks, the same demands were raised, and on 3 January 2008, the accused persons assaulted her and left with their belongings. The complainant then lodged the complaint case, registered as C/1 Case No. 207 of 2008.

The Trial and Appellate Court Rulings

Five prosecution witnesses were examined: Sushma Devi (complainant), Dinanath Paswan (her father), Shambhu Sharan Sharma (the landlord), Rajesh Kumar (her uncle), and Janardan Singh. No oral evidence was led by the defence; only two voter cards of Binod Paswan and Asha Devi were produced as documentary exhibits.

The Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur, by order dated 17 August 2011, convicted all accused persons under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment of three years with a fine of Rs. 10,000 for Section 498A, and rigorous imprisonment of two years with a fine of Rs. 5,000 each for the Dowry Prohibition Act offences, with both sentences to run concurrently.

On appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 2011, the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamshedpur, by judgment dated 31 August 2016, took a divided view. It acquitted the three co-accused relatives — Ram Sakhi Devi, Asha Devi, and Binod Paswan — from both charges. As for the husband Sanjay Kumar, the appellate court acquitted him of Section 498A IPC but upheld the conviction under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Both the husband and the complainant challenged this split outcome before the High Court.

How the High Court Reasoned

Justice Srivastava framed the central question as whether the appellate court's judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 2013 suffered from illegality or infirmity warranting interference.

On the husband's revision, the court rejected the argument that the Section 3 and 4 conviction was unsustainable. The husband's counsel had contended that no inventory of dowry articles was prepared at the time of marriage, that the additional demand of Rs. 2 lakhs was a bald allegation, and that the appellate court had erroneously attributed the receipt of Rs. 50,000 cash to the husband when the complaint itself named the mother-in-law as the recipient. The High Court did not accept these contentions. The conviction under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, already confirmed by the Sessions Court, was left in place.

On the complainant's revision, the High Court examined the oral testimony of all five witnesses and found the evidence consistent and credible. The court observed that the appellate court's insistence on the complainant having previously lodged a police report about each episode of assault, or having produced documentary evidence of injuries, was “absolutely absurd and unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

The court placed particular weight on the testimony of the father and the uncle of the complainant, who had specifically stated that they witnessed the complainant being assaulted by her husband in their presence due to the non-fulfillment of the dowry demand. The landlord, Shambhu Sharan Sharma, also corroborated events at the rented house. The court noted that in matrimonial disputes, parents and relatives typically attempt amicable settlement before approaching the police, and the complainant's delay in filing a formal complaint could not be held against her.

Having already been found guilty under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act — which presupposes a demand for dowry — Justice Srivastava held that the husband's acquittal under Section 498A IPC despite the same body of evidence was a serious error of law and reflected non-consideration of the prosecution evidence, substituting the appellate court's own conjecture for the findings carefully recorded by the trial court.

On the co-accused relatives, the High Court agreed with the appellate court's acquittals of Asha Devi and Binod Paswan. The court noted that Asha Devi had been married long before the complainant's wedding and, at the time of the alleged events, had an elder daughter about fifteen years old. The prosecution witnesses could not give satisfactory evidence about where Asha Devi resided, what occupation Binod Paswan followed, or their native place. There was no evidence that anything was paid to them as dowry, or that they had independently assaulted the complainant. The court found that they appeared to have been “roped in this case merely being relative of the husband.”

Outcome

The High Court restored the conviction and sentence of Sanjay Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar under Section 498A IPC as imposed by the trial court, setting aside the appellate court's acquittal on that charge to that extent. His conviction and sentence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act remained confirmed. Cr. Revision No. 23 of 2017, filed by the complainant, was accordingly partly allowed. Cr. Revision No. 1465 of 2016, filed by the husband, was dismissed.

The court directed that a copy of the order along with the trial court records be returned to the court concerned. Justice Srivastava also took the occasion to appreciate the assistance of Mr. Salona Mittal, who appeared as Amicus Curiae for the husband's revision, and directed the Member Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Committee to pay the stipulated fee to the Amicus Curiae within four weeks of receipt of the order.