Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 224 (PAT)

Bimlesh Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2000-02-08

D.P.S.CHOUDHARY

body2000
Judgment 1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 10-3-1997, passed by the 5th Addl. Sessions Judge. Nalanda at Biharsharif in Cr. Appeal no. 96/94 by which the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. Biharsharif in complaint case No. 56C/93. Tr. No. 480/94. convicting the petitioner under Sec. 498 - A. I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 5.000.00 in default to undergo RI for sixmonths. The appellate Court reduced the period of sentence to one year in place of three years. RI. No specific order was passed by the appellate Court regarding imposition of fine. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant Ahilya Devi was married to the petitioneraccused. Bimlesh Kumar. At the time of Rukhsati, there was demand of scooter from her parents and for non-fulfillment of the demand it is alleged that they physically assaulted her and turned her out from the sasural They also retained her ornaments etc. It is further alleged that the petitioner has married with another lady. On the basis of the complaint petition case was registered and after cognizance trial proceeded in the Court below. Originally the accused was charged under Secs. 323 and 498-A. I.P.C. but the trial Court acquitted him under Sec. 323 I.P.C. The case of the defence is that he has falsely been implicated in this case and the lady is not willing to live in her sasural and her mother has a made a condition precedent that unless the petitioner execute saledeed of his lands in favour of the complainant she would not go to her sasural for which the petitioner was not ready. Hence this false case. 3. In support of her case the complainant examined four witnesses including herself and supported the allegation as made out in the complaint petition. There is concurrent finding of the Court below that for non-fulfillment of the dowry including scooter she was assaulted and regularly tortured and ultimately turned out form her sasural After considering the impugned judgment and the evidence on record. I find no illegality or irregularity in the findings of the Court below. As such, I do not find any merit in the revision. 4. I find no illegality or irregularity in the findings of the Court below. As such, I do not find any merit in the revision. 4. Learned lawyer for the petitioner submitted that the alleged occurrence took place in the year 1993, as such for the ends of justice the period of sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him in custody and the amount of fine is much excessive. 5. Heard leaned A.P.P. Petitioners lawyer submitted that he has remained in custody for about 40 days. In the facts and circumstances of the case the period of sentence imposed against the petitioner is reduced to period already undergone by him in custody. Further the amount of fine is reduced from Rs. 5.000.00 to Rs. 1.000.00 and in default of payment of fine he shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The amount of fine shall be paid to the complainant for which the lower court will take all the steps. 6. With the above modification this revision fails and is dismissed accordingly. Revision dismissed with modification in sentence.