Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/18 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 22 October, 2025
Page No.# 1/18
GAHC010186322014
2025:GAU-AS:14382
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./361/2014
HEMANTA SINGHA
S/O LT. A LALA SINGHA VILL- SINGERBOND PART-V, MUTUMLEIKAI P.S.
LAKHIPUR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM and ANR
2:SMTI RINA DEVI
W/O HEMANTA SINGHA D/O KRISHNA SINGHA VILL and P.O.
SINGERBOND P.S. LAKHIPUR
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.T SK, MR.I ALAM
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.S R BARBHUIYA, MR.N HAQUE,MRK UDDIN,MR.A U
AHMED,MR.A B T HAQUE,MR.A K AZAD,PP, ASSAM,DR.B AHMED
Page No.# 2/18
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
ORDER
Date : 22.10.2025 Heard Mr. I. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State Respondents.
2. The present Criminal Revision Petition has been instituted assailing the Judgment dated 30.06.2014, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar, dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.4/2013, instituted by the petitioner, herein, thereby affirming Judgment dated 26.12.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Silchar, Cachar, in C.R Case No.1904/2005, convicting the petitioner, herein, under Section 406 IPC, and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6(six) months, along with payment of fine amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only, as compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3(three) months.
3. The respondent, herein, had filed a complaint and therein, had stated that her marriage with the petitioner, herein, was solemnized in the month of April, 1985.
It was further stated that after solemnization of their marriage, the petitioner and the respondent started living Page No.# 3/18 as husband and wife. It was further alleged that the petitioner, herein, during the first part of 1997 had brought the respondent, herein, to her father's house for treatment and thereafter had left her, therein, with assurance that he would take her back after few days. It was alleged in the complaint that the petitioner, herein, never came to take the respondent back to her matrimonial house. It was further alleged that the petitioner during the subsistence of his marriage with the respondent, married another woman namely, Nangbi Devi, and was co-habiting with her as husband and wife. It was further stated in the complaint that the respondent, herein, had sent some of her relatives for bringing her essential articles and clothing, however, it was alleged that the petitioner, herein, and his family members declined to gave anything to them. It was further alleged in the complaint that the 'stridhan' articles brought to her matrimonial home by the respondent, herein, were being utilized by the family members of the accused.
On receiving the complaint and on a due enquiry being made under Section 200 CrPC and under Section 202 CrPC, cognizance was taken under Section 406 IPC against the petitioner, herein, by the learned Trial Court.
On conclusion of the Trial, the learned Trial Court, vide Judgment dated 26.12.2012, proceeded to convict Page No.# 4/18 the petitioner, herein, under Section 406 IPC. On his such conviction the learned Trial Court sentenced the petitioner, herein, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6(six) months for offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. It was further ordered that the accused would pay an amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC, in default, he would undergo Simple Imprisonment for further 3(three) months.
The petitioner, herein, being aggrieved by his conviction under Section 406 IPC, and also with the direction to pay compensation to the respondent, herein, assailed the same by preferring an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.4/2013, before the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Silchar, Cachar.
The Appellate Court vide Judgment dated 30.06.2014, was pleased to dismiss the said appeal, affirming the conviction of the petitioner, herein, by the learned Trial Court along with direction for payment of compensation.
Being aggrieved the petitioner, herein, has instituted the present proceedings.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and also perused the materials available on record.
Page No.# 5/18
5. The learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record was pleased to draw the following conclusions ;
"14. Now in the instant case it is seen that the marriage between the complainant and the accused person is not disputed. The complainant had lived with the accused person as husband and wife after their marriage for more than ten years. The accused used to torture the complainant both physically and mentally demanding dowry and when the complainant failed to fulfill the demands of the accused, send her to her father's house with a promise to bring her back. The accused person did not provide any medical treatment to the complainant during her stay at the house of the accused person nor the accused went to see the complainant when she was hospitalized. Later on, though the accused sent one of his uncle to bring the complainant back, she out of fear for more torture, did not return. Subsequently, on demand made by the complainant, the accused person did not return, the articles given at the time of her marriage. As such with the help of the search warrant, issued by the Court, she was able to recover some of the articles. But the cow and gold ornaments could not be recovered, as the accused refused to hand over the said articles.
15. During her evidence the complainant(PW-1) deposed that gold jewelry worth seven(7) tollas, weaving materials and four cows were not returned by the accused person and also could not be recovered with the help of the search warrant issued by the Court.
Page No.# 6/18 Corroborating the statement of the complainant PW-2 deposed that the complainant received only half of the stridhana articles from the accused. PW-2 specifically mentioned that gold jewelry, furniture, clothes and one cow were not received. PW-2 further stated that he saw the articles given with the complainant at the time of her marriage.
16. During cross-examination the defence failed to negate the contention of the prosecution as to the non- returning of the gold jewelry and the cow. PW-2 during cross-examination stated that at the of marriage the complainant was given one cow and gold jewelry with her. PW-2 further stated that the father of the complainant gave a list to the accused containing the names of articles given with the complainant. PW-2 also stated that the complainant taking 2/3 people with her, brought back some clothes, one Almirah and some other articles from the house of the accused person.
17. It is clear from the record that on the basis of a list of sridhana articles provided by the complainant a search warrant was issued and some stridhana articles were recovered from the house of the accused person and given in the custody of complainant as per the order of the Court. That order was not challenged by the accused person.
18. In the complaint petition of instant case, a Xerox copy of list is appended to the complaint petition, and the same is mentioned as annexure in the complainant petition. In that list there is clear mention about gold jewelry and some other articles...
Page No.# 7/18
24. In the instant case the complainant firstly sent some of her relatives to bring her stidhana but the accused declined. Again the complainant along with her sister Evema Singh went to the house of the accused and demanded the pass certificates of Matric examination, which was also declined. Thus the offence of misappropriation of the stridhana articles lying in trust with the accused was committed.
25. Thus from above discussion it is clearly established that the accused person was entrusted with the stridhana of the complainant.
26. Further in the complaint petition the complainant mentioned that, when her relatives went to the house of the accused person to bring back the "stridhana" they saw that the "sridhana" articles were being used by the family member of the accused person. The complainant had to take the help of the Court to recover some portion of the stridhana from the accused, as the accused declined to hand over the stridhana to the relatives of the complainant when they went to bring the same. This clearly shows that the intention of the accused. His intention was to convert the stridhana property for his own use, and in fact the same was being used by the family member of the accused person. As such the intention of the accused was dishonest in refusing to hand over the stridhana, which was exclusively the property of the complainant."
6. Basing on the said conclusions, the learned Trial Court proceeded to convict the petitioner, herein, under Page No.# 8/18 Section 406 IPC and sentenced him as under ;
"32. In view of the above and having due regards to all the facts and circumstances of the case, age of the accused person, I sentenced the accused Hemanta Singha to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (R. I.) for 6(six) months for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. It is further order that the accused will pay an amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) to the complainant Reena Devi as compensation u/s 357(3) Cr.P.C, i/d simple imprisonment (S.I) for another three(3) months"
7. The conviction of the petitioner, herein, being assailed before the Appellate Court, the Appellate Court vide Judgment dated 30.06.2014, on appreciating the evidences coming on record proceeded to draw the following conclusions;
"12. What we find from the evidence on record is that as per the deposition of PW-1 Reena Devi ie. the wife of the appellant, gold jewellery amounting to 7 tollas, weaving materials and four cows which were given at the time of marriage were not returned by the appellant and also could not be recovered through search warrant. This was also corroborated by the evidence of PW-2 Binod Singha. It is common knowledge that in our society when a girl is given in marriage, stridhan articles are normally given alongwith the bride which thereafter are taken to the house of the groom and the same thereafter remains in Page No.# 9/18 the custody of the groom, although it continues to be the property of the bride. There is no requirement under the law that some sort of agreement, written or otherwise should be entered into between the groom and the bride's family indicating entrustment of the stridhan items with the groom. Once it is proved that stridhan articles were given at the time, of marriage, it follows that entrustment of the same has passed on to the groom and remains in his custody thereafter.
13. At paragraph 21 of the Pratibha Rani (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:
"21. After all how could any reasonable person expect a newly married women living in the same house and under the same roof to keep her personal property or belongings like jewellery, clothing, etc., under her own lock and key, thus showing a spirit of distrust to the husband at the very behest. We are surprised how could the High Court permit the husband to cast his covetous eyes on the absolute and personal property of his wife merely because it is kept in his custody, thereby reducing the custody to a legal farce. On the other hand. It seems to that us even if the personal property of the wife is jointly kept, it would be expressly or impliedly kept in the custody of the husband and if he dishonestly misappropriates or refuses to return the same, he is certainly guilty of criminal breach Page No.# 10/18 of trust, and there can be no escape from this legal consequence......"
14. The other contention regarding the necessity for demand can be readily repelled with reference to the aforesaid paragraph itself wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the husband dishonestly misappropriates "or" refused to return the same, he is certainly guilty of criminal breach of trust, and there can be no escape from this legal consequence. Therefore, demand for return and refusal to do so is not a sine qua non or a vital ingredient of the offence of criminal misappropriation. In a particular set of facts and circumstances, misappropriation or conversion to own use may be apparent even without showing that any demand for return was made and that the same was not complied with.
15. To prove a case under Section 406 1.P.C., the prosecution needs to prove the following:
(i) entrusting any person with property or with any dominion over property;
(ii) the person entrusted dishonestly misappropriating or converting to his own use that property or dishonestly using or disposing of that property or willfully suffering any other person so to do in violation (a) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged or (b) of any legal contract Page No.# 11/18 made touching the discharge of such trust.
16. It is an admitted position that the complainant left the house of the appellant. While the complainant remained at her father's house, the appellant underwent a second marriage and was living with his second wife and a child was born out of that 2nd marriage. It has also come from the mouth of PW-1 during cross- examination that she has filed the complaint after 7 years of coming from the house of her husband. Therefore, it is apparent that even after the complainant left the house of the appellant whereafter he married and raised a family and 7 long years had passed by, the appellant did not make any attempt to return the stridhan articles to the complainant. The necessary corollary of the above is that he had converted the same to his own use, which expression would include his new family. There is also evidence to show that the complainant had sent her sister to the house of the appellant to get back her matriculation certificate, but the appellant did not handover the same. Although the said sister of the PW-1 had not been made a witness in this case, since it was the PW-1 who allegedly sent her, the PW-1 is competent to depose on the matter of sending her sister to the house of the appellant.
17. In cross-examination, the PW-1 stated that she also went along with her sister to her husband's house to bring the matriculation certificate, thereby making improvement of her deposition in her examination-in-
Page No.# 12/18 chief, points out learned counsel for the appellant.
18. Even if the said alleged improvement is disregarded, then also the testimony of PW-1 that she had sent her sister to collect the matriculation certificate has not been effectively rebutted during cross-examination. As indicated earlier, it is not necessary to establish refusal to return in order to establish the fact of misappropriation. The same can be well inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case and the present case is precisely one such case, for the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Therefore, naturally the complainant side did not see any purpose in going to the house of the appellant to take back the stridhan articles and instead they resorted to the medium of the law by obtaining search warrant for recovery of the said articles, as deposed to by PW-1 and corroborated by PW-2. The fact that the complainant got a search warrant issued and in execution of the same, certain articles were recovered has been established by the evidence of PWs- 1 and 2. This also leads to the necessary inference that the appellant refused to return the stridhan articles and had misappropriated the same.
19. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the complainant could not show as to what specific articles were handed over to the appellant at the time of marriage, in as much as, the articles allegedly given at the time of marriage were not properly mentioned in the complaint petition and no list of articles was given in the Page No.# 13/18 complaint petition. Furthermore, there are discrepancies in the evidence of PW 1 and 2 as to the articles allegedly handed over at the time of marriage. In this regard reliance has been placed on the Decision of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in Junali Gogoi V. Girin Buragohain, reported in (2012) 2 GLR 627, which was an appeal against an order of acquittal. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble High Court observed "19. In a large number of cases, the Apex Court has held that the basic foundation of the offence of criminal breach of trust is that a property must be entrusted, and the dominion of the property should be given to the trustee. In the present case, even PW-1 could not specifically indicate, which were the items entrusted to the accused opposite party. There was confusion in the list of items. There has to be clear allegation of entrustment of specific items by the complainant against the accused."
20. Reverting to the evidence of PW-1, she has specifically mentioned about the gold jewellery amounting to 7 tollas, weaving materials and four cows which were given at the time of marriage but were not returned by the appellant and the same also could not be recovered through search warrant. This was corroborated by the PW-2 in material particulars, who further stated that he has also seen the articles given at the time of marriage of the complainant. During cross- examination also, the PW-2 deposed that at the time of Page No.# 14/18 marriage, one cow and gold jewellery, among which gold jewellery for neck, ear, hands and finger were given with the complainant. Therefore, there is positive evidence which is duly corroborated specifying the items that were given at the time of marriage. Therefore, that fact that no list has been given in the complaint petition itself does not lead me to disbelieve the evidence of PWs-1 and 2. Therefore, the aforesaid decision is not of much help to the appellant.
21. Another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court has been relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant in Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwala and Others V. State of Punjab and Others, reported in (2009) 3 SCC (Crl) 620, wherein it has been held that if any article was given by way of dowry, the question of entrustment on behalf of the wife cannot arise and if any dowry has been given, the same would attract the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
22. The present is not a case where the complainant is aggrieved by any giving or demand for dowry being made by the accused. Rather, she is aggrieved by the non-return of the stridhan articles that were given to her as presents by her parents at the time of marriage. Therefore, the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 would not find application, vis-a-vis the grievance of the complainant, more so in view of Section 3(2)(a) of the said Act which exempts presents given to the bride at the time of marriage without demand in that behalf Page No.# 15/18 from the vice of Section 3(1) of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
23. Moreover, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pratibha Rani (Supra), the offence of criminal misappropriation is clearly applicable in the case of stridhan articles. Therefore, the decision in Harmanpreet (Supra) also does not aid the appellant."
8. Basing on the said conclusions, the learned Appellate Court proceeded to dismiss the appeal and thereby, uphold the conviction of the petitioner, herein, under Section 406 IPC along with the direction for payment of compensation.
9. This Court has carefully perused the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, in the light of the evidences coming on record during the Trial. On such examination, this Court finds that the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court has been so drawn on a due appreciation of the evidences coming on record and no infirmity is found with regard to the same. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner, herein, under Section 406 IPC would not mandate any interference from this Court.
10. Having noticed the said position, this Court finds that the complaint in the matter was lodged in the year 2005. 20(twenty) years have passed since the Page No.# 16/18 institution of the proceedings against the petitioner, herein, by the respondent. The petitioner is found to have been litigating in the matter for the last 20(twenty) years, since 2005, initially before the Trial Court, thereafter before the Appellate Court and presently before this Court in the present criminal revision petition.
11. The learned Trial Court while proceeding to sentence the petitioner, herein, had not considered the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. However, this Court, considering the long lapse of time occasioning in the matter since the institution of the complaint petition, against the petitioner, herein, by the respondent as well as the prolonged litigation ensuing in the matter, is of the considered view that the petitioner, herein, is entitled to be extended with the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The said benefit being permissible to be so extended by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction, this Court accordingly extends the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to the petitioner, herein.
However, considering the fact that a loss has occasioned to the respondent, herein, this Court upholds the compensation awarded by the learned Trial Court to the respondent invoking the provisions of Sub Section 3 of Section 357 CrPC.
12. Accordingly, for the reasons, noticed Page No.# 17/18 hereinabove, while the conviction of the petitioner is upheld, the petitioner, herein, be given the benefit of provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and consequently the sentence of the imprisonment of the petitioner as imposed by the learned Trial Court stands modified and it is provided that instead of sending the petitioner, herein, in jail, he should be extended the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. However, the sentencing of the petitioner to the extent of payment of compensation amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) to the respondent, herein, is not interfered with.
13. In view of the above discussions, it is directed that the petitioner, herein, will file 2(two) sureties to the tune of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) each, along with a personal bond before the learned Trial Court i.e. the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Silchar, Cachar, and undertake, to the effect that the petitioner shall maintain peace and good behavior during the period of 1(one) year from the date of filing of the bond. The aforesaid bond be filed by the petitioner within a period of 1(one) month from today, along with the deposit of the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) as awarded by the learned Trial Court vide the Judgment dated 26.12.2012, in C.R. Case No.1904/2005.
Page No.# 18/18 The learned Trial Court on the deposit of the compensation amount by the petitioner, shall release the same to the respondent, herein.
14. With the above observations and directions, the present Criminal Revision Petition stands disposed of.
15. Send down the records of the case to the Trial Court along with a copy of this order for information and necessary action.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant