Patna High Court
Bipin Singh @ Bipin Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The conviction under Section 498-A IPC is affirmed, but the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Bipin Singh, was convicted under Section 498-A IPC for cruelty towards his wife, Pushpa Devi, who alleged harassment, demand for a motorcycle, and an attempt to burn her. The petitioner appealed, arguing that the complainant's witnesses were interested, there was no independent evidence, and the matter had been settled with a land sale. The High Court examined the trial and appellate records, finding that both courts had duly considered the evidence and that the petitioner's arguments did not merit overturning the conviction. While upholding the conviction, the Court reduced the sentence to the seven months already served, affirming the fine. The revision petition was partly allowed, and the petitioner was discharged from bail bond liability.
Issues considered
- Whether the conviction under Section 498-A IPC can be set aside on the ground of unreliable, interested witnesses and lack of independent evidence.
- Whether a post‑conviction settlement and land sale affect the validity of the conviction.
- Whether the sentence should be reduced in view of time already served and the petitioner's personal circumstances.
- Whether the revision petition is maintainable after the findings of the trial and appellate courts.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 498-A
Subjects
- cruelty
- dowry harassment
- Section 498-A
- criminal revision
- sentence reduction
- settlement
- witness credibility
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.447 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-715 Year-2007 Thana- NALANDA COMPLAINT CASE
District- Nalanda
======================================================
Bipin Singh @ Bipin Kumar Singh, S/o Ram Briksh Singh @ Ram Brichi
Singh, Resident of village- Madanpur, PS- Pandarak (Old), New PS- NTPC
Barh, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Pushpa Devi D/o Late Alakhdeo Singh, W/o Bipin Singh @ Bipin Kumar
Singh R/o vill - Madanpur, P.S.- Pandarak (Old), New P.S. - N.T.P.C., Barh,
Distt.- Patna, at present R/o village- Ratna, P.S.- Chhabilapur, Distt.-
Nalanda
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arun Kumar Arun, Advocate
Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Sharma, APP
For the OP No.2 : Mr. Rabindra Pd. Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-06-2026
Heard learned counsels for the respective parties.
2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred by
the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 10.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-II, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Criminal Appeal
No. 06 of 2016, arising out of Complaint Case
No.715©/2007/Trial No.116/2016, whereby and whereunder the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.01.2016
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II,
Nalanda at Biharsharif has been affirmed by which the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.447 of 2025 dt.29-06-2026
2/5
petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 498-A IPC and has been sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in
default of payment of fine, to suffer three months additional
imprisonment.
3. The opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint case
alleging therein that her marriage was solemnized with the
petitioner in the year 1987. At the time of marriage, her parents
had given cash amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- and some ornaments.
After her marriage, the petitioner and his family members
demanded a motorcycle and due to non-fulfillment of their
demand, they started harassing the opposite party no.2.
Thereafter, Rs.40,000/- has been given by the parents of the
opposite party no.2 for purchasing motorcycle. After birth of a
female child, the accused persons became more violent and
increased torture of the complainant. The accused persons
including the petitioner also made an attempt to burn the
complainant to death by pouring kerosene oil, but she anyhow
escaped and returned to her paternal house. Thereafter, the
present complaint case has been filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the impugned judgments of conviction and orders of sentence
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.447 of 2025 dt.29-06-2026
3/5
are bad in law as well as on facts. The learned appellate court
and the learned trial court failed to appreciate that all the
complainant witnesses are closely related to each other and,
thus, they all are highly interested witnesses. Therefore, their
testimonies are not trustworthy. Hence, the petitioner should
have been acquitted from the charges levelled against him on
this score alone. The learned counsel further submits that there
is no independent witness of alleged offence. The learned
counsel further submits that the learned trial court did not
examine the evidence of the witnesses minutely and came to an
erroneous finding and hence, the judgments of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the courts below are not sustainable.
Moreover, the petitioner has been punished much as he has been
continuously facing the ordeal and miseries of the prolonged
criminal proceeding against him for the last more than 18 years,
although he has been paying the amount of maintenance and has
also paid arrears amount of maintenance to the opposite party
no.2 and no useful purpose would be served to put the petitioner
behind the bar. The learned counsel further submits that the
petitioner has remained in custody for about seven months after
the judgment of the learned appellate court. The petitioner is
facing this lis from the year 2007. He has no criminal
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.447 of 2025 dt.29-06-2026
4/5
antecedent. The learned counsel further submits that the matter
has been compromised between the parties and the petitioner
has fulfilled all the conditions put by the opposite party no.2
towards amicable settlement of the matter and the father of the
petitioner has executed a sale deed for two bigha of land in
favour of opposite party no.2 towards full and final settlement
and mutation of the said land is also being done in the name of
opposite party no.2. Therefore, it is prayed by the learned
counsel that the judgments and orders of the learned courts
below may be set aside and the revision petition may be
allowed. If the Court is not inclined, then in that case the
sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period
already undergone by him.
5. Perused the record.
6. From perusal of record, I find that the learned trial
court has considered in detail the evidence of witnesses and so
the learned first appellate court. The evidence of the witnesses
have been discussed and the impugned orders were passed.
Further, the learned first appellate court also considered the
grounds which are being raised before this Court while
disposing of the appeal and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be
allowed to re-agitate the matter again in this revision petition. If
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.447 of 2025 dt.29-06-2026
5/5
the facts were appreciated in the light of the evidence and two
subordinate courts recorded a concurrent finding, there is very
little scope for this Court to interfere in the matter in revision.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and
considering the fact that the petitioner has already undergone
seven months of incarceration in this case and further
considering the fact that he has no criminal antecedent and he is
facing this lis from the last 19 years, I am of the view that the
ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction
of the petitioner, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the
period already undergone by him.
8. Consequently, the conviction of the petitioner under
the aforesaid section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the
period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is affirmed.
9. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed.
10. The petitioner is already on bail. He is discharged
from the liability of the bail bonds.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
V.K.Pandey/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 29.06.2026
Transmission Date 29.06.2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.