Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1437 (JHR)

Gopi Mandal v. State of Jharkhand

2019-08-17

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.:— The instant application has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the common judgment dated 19.06.2013 passed in criminal appeal no. 15 of 2012 and 11 of 2012, by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dumka whereby the learned appellate court dismissed both the appeals affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 07.02.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dumka in G.R. No. 36 of 2010, whereby the petitioners have been convicted for the offence under Section 498A IPC and awarded R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in case of default in payment of fine, further R.I. for two months. 2. The prosecution case is based upon the written report by one Yamuna Devi before the officer-in-charge, P.S.-Masalia on 08.01.2010 alleging inter alia that her marriage was solemnized with petitioner no. 1 on 15.08.2009 as per hindu rites and customs and at the time of marriage her parents gave a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and other valuable items. It has further been alleged that the informant lived at her Sasural sometime peacefully but thereafter, the petitioner no. 1 along with other petitioners started demanding dowry in the form of motorcycle etc. and she was subjected to torture. It has further been alleged that on 14.09.2009 even a Panchayati was held between the parties and after that she again went to her Sasural but again quarrel started and she was dragged out of her house. On the basis of the written report police instituted a case being Masalia P.S. Case No. 03 of 2010 under Section 498A/379/34 IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and after investigation police submitted the charge-sheet under Section 498/34 IPC. The cognizance was taken and the charges were framed against the petitioners under Section 498A IPC. 3. Based upon the evidence laid before him, the learned trial court convicted the petitioners and sentenced them as discussed hereinabove. Being aggrieved, the petitioners challenged the order of learned trial court before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dumka who has affirmed the judgment of conviction as well as order of sentence. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner no. 1 has already served the sentence which is also mentioned in the last para of the impugned order passed by the learned appellate court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner no. 1 has already served the sentence which is also mentioned in the last para of the impugned order passed by the learned appellate court. He has further submitted that petitioner no. 2 and petitioner no. 3 are aged about more than 60 years and so far as petitioner no. 4 and petitioner no. 5 are concerned, they are also aged about 40 years. Further, there is no criminal antecedent against them and even assuming the entire allegation to be true this will be the first offence committed by them. 5. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. has submitted that there is no error in the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below and as such, no interference is required by this Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I am not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction which has been affirmed uptill appellate court. As such, the same is affirmed. 7. So far as sentence of the petitioners is concerned, this is the first offence of the petitioners and it will not be proper to send the petitioners back to the custody at this advance age. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the petitioners are entitled to get benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. As such, petitioners are directed to be released under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act after filing Probation bond with two sureties each for two years for keeping peace in the society. 8. It appears that the petitioners have availed the privilege of bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court and as such, the petitioners are discharged from the liability of bail bonds. 9. However, the petitioners are directed to pay cost of Rs. 40,000/- jointly and the same shall be deposited before the trial court, who in turn shall issue notice to the victim/informant and upon proper verification make payment of the said amount to the victim. It is made clear that if the aforesaid amount is not paid within a period of three months the petitioners will serve the remaining sentence as directed by the learned trial court and upheld by the appellate court. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal revision application is disposed of. 11. Let the lower court record be sent the court concerned forthwith.