Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1601 (JHR)

Ajay Kumar Sinha v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-09-13

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT Deepak Roshan, J. - The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 13.05.2013 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI, Ranchi, in Criminal Appeal No.34/2012, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 04.01.2012, passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi in connection with G.R. Case No.3163 of 2001 (T.R. No. 6 of 2012), whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence committed under Sections 498A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo SI for 2 years for Section 498A and 2 and half years for Section 494 IPC and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for each offence, has been dismissed and the sentence was modified by the learned appellate court to the extent that the petitioner was directed to serve SI for one year for the offence under Section 498A with fine of Rs.5,000/- and further SI for 1 year with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 494 of IPC. However, both the sentences were directed to go concurrently. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 7 of Hindu Marriage Act has not been taken into account by the learned trial court and as a matter of fact, the petitioner is not the husband of the informant. In this view of the matter, he is not liable to be convicted under Sections 498A and 494 IPC. 3. Per contra, the learned APP submits that in the revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot interfere into with the evidences unless and until there is grave error in appreciation of evidence leading to perversity of the order. In the instant case, nothing has been brought on record by the petitioner that there is any illegality in the order. 4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials available on record including the lower court record. The learned trial court after appreciating the evidences, came to the conclusion that the petitioner being the husband of the informant and his step wife, being accused no.2 thereby being husband''s relative subjected the informant to cruelty by putting the informant and her children to physical and mental torture and assault and by willfully harassing the informant to coerce her to meet unlawful demand of dowry and convicted the petitioner and the co-accused-Kalindi Sinha. 5. 5. On appeal, the learned appellate court concurred with the finding given by the learned trial court with respect to conviction against the petitioner. However, with respect to sentence, the learned appellate court modified the sentence from S.I of 2 years for Section 498A and 21/2 years for Section 494 to S.I of one year for each offences i.e. Sections 498A and 494 IPC with fine of Rs.5,000 each. The learned appellate court has taken into consideration the age of the petitioner while modifying the sentence. Further, the learned appellate court has acquitted the co-convict-Kalindi Sinha. 6. Keeping in view, the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court and hence the conviction against the petitioner under Sections 498A and 494 is hereby confirmed. 7. So far as sentence is concerned, it is seen that the petitioner is aged about 70 years and has also remained in custody for some days. The case is also pending since 2001 and certainly in the last 18 years, the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigations and also remained in custody for sometime. The petitioner had all along remained on bail and never misused the privilege of bail. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in sending the petitioner back to prison at this advance stage of life. However, the victim suffered pain at the hand of the petitioner. As such, in my considered opinion that while the substantive sentence may be reduced to the period undergone, the petitioner shall pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- to the victim-wife, failing which, he shall serve the sentence as modified by the learned appellate court. 8. It is made clear that the aforesaid amount must be deposited within a period of two months from today before the learned trial court who shall pay the same to the informant-wife after due formalities. 9. With the aforesaid modification in sentence only and directions, the instant revision application is dismissed and the petitioner is discharged from the liability of the bail bonds. . 10. Let the lower court record be sent to the concerned court forthwith.