Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 443 (ORI)

Pradeep Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa

2014-07-24

B.P.RAY

body2014
Judgment B.P. RAY, J. The petitioner in this revision application has challenged the order dated 17.11.1995 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur in Criminal Appeal No.8 of 1995 (Crl.A. No. 88 of 1993-GDC) modifying the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Berhampur, in G.R. case No.358 of 1991(Trial No.215 of 1992) with regard to default sentence for non-payment of the fine amount imposed against the appellant-convict. The learned J.M.F.C., Berhampur in the aforesaid G.R. Case No.358 of 1991 (Trial no.215 of 1992) vide judgment dated 26.04.1993 while convicting the present petitioner of the charges under Sections 498A and 323 I.P.C, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 498A, I.P.C and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 323, I.P.C. In this revision the petitioner challenges only the default sentence for non-payment of fine of Rs.500/- imposed for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C; imposed by the learned J.M.F.C. which has been modified to R.I. for fifteen days. 2. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that the wife of the petitioner Smt. Rupamanjari Rath married the petitioner on 27.04.1990. During the marriage, some gold ornaments, television set and other articles had been given to the parents of the petitioner. After leading a happy conjugal life for a few days, the wife of the petitioner was subjected to torture, harassment and assault by the petitioner-husband, his brother as well as his mother on demand of more dowry from her parents, for which, the wife of the petitioner came to her father’s house being injured and ventilated the same to her parents. Thereafter, an F.I.R, Exhibit-1, was lodged against the petitioner-husband and others at B.N. Pur Police Station by the wife of the petitioner, who is the informant in this case. After investigation, police filed charge-sheet under Sections 498A/324/34 I.P.C read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act. 3. The plea of the accused-petitioner before the trial court is one of complete denial. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses on its behalf, whereas the defence examined four witnesses. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that there is no material available on record to convict the petitioner. 3. The plea of the accused-petitioner before the trial court is one of complete denial. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses on its behalf, whereas the defence examined four witnesses. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that there is no material available on record to convict the petitioner. He further argued that the sentence passed by the courts below is high and excessive. 6. During hearing of the case, I directed the informant-Rupamanjari Rath to file an affidavit. Accordingly, she has filed an affidavit through the learned Additional Standing Counsel which was forwarded by the Inspector In-charge, B.N. Pur police station. In that affidavit she has stated that she does not want to proceed with this case. She has further stated that she has remarried after the divorce from the present petitioner in the year 1998; has been blessed with two sons; has been leading a happy conjugal life; and she does not want to claim any maintenance from the petitioner. 7. In view of the affidavit filed by the informant and having gone through the evidence on record, I do not find any cogent material to interfere with the judgment and order of conviction passed by the courts below. 8. It is also well settled by the Hon’ble apex Court in various judgments that even though the offence U/s 498A I.P.C. is not compoundable, once the marital case is settled and parties being not interested to proceed with the litigation, the court should try to settle the matter between the parties. 9. In view of the authoritative pronouncement, I am not inclined to modify the judgment and order of conviction and also I am not inclined to modify the sentence passed by the courts below. Hence considering the nature of allegation and the affidavit of the informant and the fact that the informant has already remarried and has been leading a happy conjugal life, I modify the substantive sentence passed by the courts below and reduce the same to the period already undergone during the trial and impose a fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand), out of which, a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand), shall be paid to the Advocates’ Welfare Fund of Ganjam Bar Association and the remaining amount, i.e., Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand), shall be paid to the State Exchequer, within a period of two months hence. If the amount as aforesaid is not paid within the time stipulated, the substantive sentence shall be given effect to. The Criminal Revision is accordingly disposed of.