Gauhati High Court
Gobindra Nath @ Gobinda Nath vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 16 October, 2025
Page No.# 1/10
GAHC010185782014
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./275/2014
GOBINDRA NATH @ GOBINDA NATH
S/O LT. BHODHESWAR NATH VILL- NARIKALI P.O. KHANDAJAN MOUZA
and P.S. SIPAJHAR DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, STATE OF ASSAM.
2:SMTI. DALIMI NATH
D/O RAJEN NATHW/O GOBINDARA NATH R/O VILL- DAKSHIN SUBURI
MOUZA and P.S. SIPAJHAR
DIST. DARRANG
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A Y CHOUDHURY, MR.M AHMED,MR.M HAQUE,MR.M R
HAZARIKA
Advocate for the Respondent : MS.R DUTTA, PP, ASSAM,,LEGAL AID COUNSEL
Page No.# 2/10
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
ORDER
Date : Date:16.10.2025 Heard Ms. J. Begum, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. M. Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State Respondent.
2. The present criminal revision petition has been instituted by the petitioner assailing the Judgment dated 16.05.2014, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai, in Criminal Appeal No.6(D-1)14, upholding the conviction of the appellant, herein, under Section 406 IPC, and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3(three) months along with payment of fine of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for further 1(one) month by the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang, Mangaldai, vide Judgment dated 18.01.2014 in C.R. Case No.277/2013.
3. The case of the complainant before the Trial Court was that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner, herein, on 10.05.2009. Thereafter, she was taken to the house of the petitioner, herein, along with the 'stridhan' given at the time Page No.# 3/10 of her marriage. It was further projected that they lived their conjugal life happily for a few days and thereafter it was projected that the petitioner, herein, inflicted mental and physical torture upon the respondent, herein, without any rhyme and reason and that she was not given proper food and not taken care of when she fell ill. It was further projected in the complaint that the petitioner, herein, and his family members had insulted her by projecting that she had brought substandard articles as 'stridhan' and pressurized her to bring good and high standard quality articles as dowry. It is further projected that on her failure to satisfy the demand for dowry, she was subjected to torture. It was further projected in the complaint that on 06.08.2011 due to fear of her life and that of her son, who was at that relevant point of time aged about 1 months, she left the house of the petitioner, herein, and started to live in her parental house. It was further projected that on 21.09.2012, the petitioner married one Pranita Devi, and thereafter they were living as husband and wife. The respondent, in the complaint further projected that the 'stridhan' articles taken by her to her matrimonial house was still under the custody of the petitioner and there is every possibility of the same being misappropriated. She further projected that she had gone to the house of the petitioner, herein, to take back the 'stridhan' articles but the petitioner and his family members refused to return the same.
Page No.# 4/10 The said complaint was filed on 13.03.2013, before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangaldai. The said complaint was thereafter transferred to the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang, Mangaldai. On recording, the statement of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC, cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 498A/406 IPC, summons were issued to the petitioner, herein.
Upon appearance of the petitioner, herein, a Trial ensued and therein, the respondent, herein, had examined 3(three) witnesses under Section 245 CrPC. On examination of the witnesses, the Trial Court framed a charge under Section 498A/406 IPC against the petitioner, herein. The same being read over and explained to the petitioner, he having pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, a Trial ensued in the matter.
The witnesses adduced by the complainant were cross- examined by the petitioner, herein. On conclusion of the Trial, the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 CrPC was recorded. On conclusion of the Trial, the learned Trial Court on perusing the evidences coming on record proceeded vide Judgment dated 18.01.2014 to acquit the appellant from the charge under Section 498A IPC. However, basing on the evidences coming on record, the petitioner, herein, was convicted under Section 406 IPC. On his such conviction he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3(three) months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two Page No.# 5/10 thousand) in default to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1(one) month.
4. The petitioner, herein, being aggrieved by his conviction under Section 406 IPC by the learned Trial Court assailed the same by way of filing an appeal being criminal appeal No.6(D-1)14, before the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai. The learned Sessions Judge, Mangaldai, upon appreciating the evidences coming on record was pleased vide Judgment dated 16.05.2014, to uphold the conviction of the petitioner, herein, under Section 406 IPC and accordingly, dismissed the appeal so preferred by the petitioner, herein.
Being aggrieved the petitioner has instituted the present criminal revision petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
6. The petitioner, herein, having being convicted under Section 406 IPC, the provisions thereof, being relevant, the same is extracted hereinbelow;
"406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust.- whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both"
7. A perusal of the provisions of Section 406 IPC brings to the forefront that the same mandates that whoever commits Page No.# 6/10 criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. Criminal breach of trust is defined under the provisions of Section 405 IPC, the same being relevant it is extracted hereinbelow ;
"405. Criminal breach of trust.- Whoever being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he had made touching the discharge of such trust or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".
8. A perusal of the provisions of Section 405 IPC, it is apparent that whoever being in any manner entrusted with property or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he had made touching the discharge of such trust or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".
The evidences coming on record reveals that the complainant i.e. the respondent, herein, at the time of marriage had Page No.# 7/10 taken to her matrimonial home, along with her, 'stridhan' articles. On account of matrimonial disputes arising in the matter, the respondent, herein, having left her matrimonial house, it is projected that the 'stridhan' articles continued to remain in the custody of the petitioner, herein. The learned Trial Court upon examining the evidences coming on record had found that the charge under Section 498A IPC framed against the petitioner, herein, was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, the petitioner was acquitted from the charge as framed under Section 498A IPC against him. Thereafter, the petitioner was convicted under Section 406 IPC.
9. A perusal of the evidences brought on record would go to reveal that the respondent, herein, had not brought on record materials to disclose that she had demanded the return of the 'stridhan' articles and the same was not returned to her.
In her deposition while she had deposed of having taken the 'stridhan' articles with her, she had deposed that the said articles are remaining in her matrimonial house. During her cross-examination also, she had not highlighted any particulars with regard to the demand made by her for return of the said articles by the petitioner, herein. Although the evidence of PW-2 Biju Devi reveals that she along with the respondent, herein, had gone to the house of the petitioner to bring back the articles but the petitioner and his 2 nd wife Page No.# 8/10 had refused to return the articles. However, the said deposition is devoid of any material particulars with regard to the date on which they had approached the petitioner, herein, to return the articles to the respondent, herein. The petitioner, herein, in his deposition as DW-1 had categorically stated that the 'stridhan' articles brought by the respondent, herein, were still available in his house and the respondent, herein, had exaggerated with regard to the number of items brought as 'stridhan' articles and accordingly disputed the list as enclosed along with the complaint of the 'stridhan' articles. He further deposed that the said articles as brought by the respondent, herein, is available in his house and he has not misappropriated it and the respondent, herein, has the right to take those articles at any time.
During his cross-examination he had deposed that the said articles could not be returned to the respondent, as she had not come to his house to take back the same.
10. In view of the evidences coming on record in the matter, there is a doubt with regard to the demand made by the respondent, herein, for return of the articles by the petitioner. It is also not apparent from the evidences coming on record that the marriage solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent, was dissolved at any point of time. Accordingly, the status of the petitioner and the respondent as husband and wife continues to be maintained.
Page No.# 9/10
11. In view of the above position, it cannot be concluded without any doubt that the 'stridhan' articles were demanded to be returned by the respondent, herein, and the same was refused by the petitioner. Accordingly, the ingredients of Section 405 IPC is not found to be satisfied mandating punishment of the petitioner under Section 406 IPC.
12. In view of the above position, this Court is of the considered view that the conviction of the petitioner under Section 406 IPC by the learned Trial Court vide Judgment 18.01.2014, would not be maintainable. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 406 IPC is set aside and the petitioner is set at liberty forthwith, therefrom.
The conviction of the petitioner by the learned Trial Court having being interfered with the Judgment dated 16.05.2014, passed by the learned Appellate Trial Court is also set aside.
13. Having interfered with the conviction of the appellant and the Judgment dated 18.01.2014 passed by the learned Trial Court and the Judgment dated 16.05.2014 passed by the learned Appellate Court, having been set aside, the petitioner is set at liberty and the bail bond executed by him stands discharged.
14. Having drawn the above conclusion, this Court notices the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, which reiterates the deposition of the petitioner, herein, Page No.# 10/10 before the Trial Court that the articles as brought by the respondent, herein, as 'stridhan' after solemnization of their marriage, is still available in the house of the petitioner and he being ready to return the same on the respondent approaching him for return of the same, this Court observes that the respondent, herein, is at liberty to approach the petitioner for return of the 'stridhan' articles if so desired by her.
15. With the above observations and directions, the present revision petition stands allowed.
16. Registry to send down the records of the case to the learned Trial Court along with a copy of this order for information and necessary action.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant