Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1894 (JHR)

Amiya Kumar Dubey v. State of Jharkhand

2019-11-20

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Both the aforesaid revision applications have been preferred against the common judgment dated 29.09.2014 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2008, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.04.2008 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella in C - 1 Case No. 123 of 2001 (T. R. No. 445 of 2008), has been affirmed. 2. Criminal Revision No. 1085 of 2014 has been preferred by the petitioner-Amiya Kumar Dubey who is the husband of the opposite party no. 2 whereas the Criminal Revision No. 1090 of 2014 has been preferred by the other family members being mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law of informant-opposite party no. 2. 3. The learned trial court vide its order dated 30.04.2008 convicted the petitioners for the offence under Section 498A and sentenced them to undergo RI for one year each with fine of Rs. 500/-each. It was further directed that if the fine is not paid then all the petitioners shall serve fifteen days additional sentence. The said order of learned trial court has been sustained by the learned appellate court and even the sentence was not interfered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a general allegation against the petitioners and it was a fake case which was filed by the opposite party no. 2. He further submits that there are major contradictions amongst the prosecution witnesses. However, the learned trial court did not consider the same and pass the judgment of conviction with a pre-conceived mind that the opposite party no. 2 was subjected to cruelty by the petitioners. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, made an alternative argument to the extent that the incident is of the year 2001 and eighteen years have been elapsed. Further the petitioners are not habitual offenders and there is no criminal antecedent whatsoever is against them and further at present even the husband is aged about sixty-three years and the mother-in-law is about eighty years old and the brother and sister though are not aged but they are busy in their life and sending them back to prison will ruin the entire family. In this view of the matter interest of justice demands that the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine. 6. The learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no. In this view of the matter interest of justice demands that the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine. 6. The learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 though supported the impugned orders but could not deny the fact that the petitioner-husband himself is more than sixty years and there is no criminal antecedent of the petitioner. 7. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after going through the impugned orders and lower court records and keeping in mind the limited scope of the revisional jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of the courts below and as such the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby, confirmed. 8. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 2001 and eighteen years have elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of litigation in all these years and also remained in custody. Petitioner-Amiya Kumar Dubey in Criminal Revision No. 1085 of 2014 has remained in custody for about 41 days and the petitioners-Kuntibala Devi @ Kunti Bala Dubey, Sanjukta Tripathy and Chhakanlal Dubey in Criminal Revision No. 1090 of 2014 have remained in custody for about twenty four days respectively. It is not stated that the petitioners have ever misused the privilege of bail. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that it may not be proper for this Court to send the accused persons back to prison. In this way, it is expedient in the interest of justice that the sentence passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court be modified in lieu of fine because, certainly the injured had suffered pains at the hand of petitioners as such I am of the opinion that the petitioners should pay a fine of Rs. 50,000 in total. 9. Thus, the sentence passed by the Court below is, hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioners are sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone subject to the payment of Rs. 50,000/-fine. 10. It is made clear that the petitioners are directed to pay the fine of Rs. 50,000/-within a period of two months from today before the learned trial Court which shall be paid to the informant-wife as compensation. 50,000/-fine. 10. It is made clear that the petitioners are directed to pay the fine of Rs. 50,000/-within a period of two months from today before the learned trial Court which shall be paid to the informant-wife as compensation. 11. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence only, these two revision applications are disposed of. 12. The petitioners shall be discharged from the liability of their bail bonds subject to the fulfillment of the aforesaid condition. 13. Let a copy of this order be communicated through FAX to the court concerned.