Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 550 (PAT)

Shambhu Chaudhary v. State of Bihar

2014-05-02

JYOTI SARAN

body2014
JUDGMENT JYOTI SARAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. Bashistha Narayan Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. This criminal revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.12.2002 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah in Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2000, whereby the appellate court while upholding the conviction of the petitioners under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and dismissing the appeal, has modified the sentence from two years as awarded by the trial court to one year. 3. This criminal revision was admitted vide order passed on 4.2.2003 and while doing so this Court dismissed the revision against petitioner no. 1 Shambhu Chaudhary, who happens to be the husband of the daughter of the informant. Thus this revision proceeded only in respect of petitioner nos. 2 to 4. It is admitted by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that by virtue of dismissal of the criminal revision application the petitioner no. 1, who is the husband, has suffered the sentence. 4. A supplementary affidavit has been filed today bringing on record the death certificate of the petitioner no. 4 (Motilal Chaudhary) who is stated to have deceased on 2.5.2010, i.e. during the pendency of the revision application and as a consequence this revision also stands dismissed against him. Thus presently the matter proceeds with respect to petitioner no. 2 who happens to be the cousin brother-in-law of the daughter of the informant and the petitioner no. 3, the mother-in-law of the daughter of the informant. 5. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners with reference to the judgment passed by the courts below has submitted that a compromise petition was filed before the trial court but since the offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable under section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hence the courts below did not act thereupon but while doing so, the appellate court has observed in paragraph 9 that the compromise would be kept in mind and it is in this background that the appellate court was pleased to modify the sentence from two years as awarded by the trial court to one year. He thus submits that for the sentence as it stands modified the petitioners have undergone incarceration for about 2 months and 15 days. He thus submits that for the sentence as it stands modified the petitioners have undergone incarceration for about 2 months and 15 days. He further submits that considering that the allegation was mainly directed towards the husband and considering that the parties had resolved to end the dispute, no fruitful purpose would be served in sending the petitioners to complete the remaining period of sentence. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the materials on record. That a compromise petition was filed in the court below is manifest from the observation made by the appellate court in paragraphs 6 and 9 of the appellate court judgment. The reasons for not accepting the same is also mentioned therein. Although the law has traveled long distance since then and presently the offences under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code even though non-compoundable are being permitted to be settled if the parties resolve to end the dispute, this Court is of the opinion that no purpose would be served in requiring the two petitioners to return to the custody and suffer sentence. 7. This Court thus while upholding the conviction of the petitioners, would modify the sentence to the period undergone by each of the petitioners. Since the petitioners are already on bail hence they shall stand discharged from the liability of the bail bonds. 8. With the modification in the sentence aforementioned this criminal revision application is dismissed. 9. Let the lower court records received be returned to the court concerned forthwith.