Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2015 (JHR)

Tarak Nath Patra v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-12-13

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT Deepak Roshan, J. - The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 17.08.2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 322 of 2012 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was partly allowed. 2. The learned trial court vide its judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.12.2012 passed in G.R. Case No. 502 of 2006 (T.R. Case No. 23 of 2012) found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 498 A IPC and sentenced him for R.I. of 2 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The petitioner was also convicted and sentence to undergo R.I. for 6 months for the offence under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The learned appellate court while concurring with the finding of trial court with respect to offence under Section 498 A IPC, acquitted the petitioner from the charge under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are major contradictions among the prosecution witnesses and it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts. He further submits that though there was injury report given by the doctor but the doctor himself has not been examined as such the veracity of the injury report cannot be taken into account. Learned counsel for the petitioner made an alternative argument to the effect that there is no criminal antecedent of the petitioner and he is Naval Officer as such he may be granted the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. 5. Per contra the learned APP though supports the impugned orders but could not dispute the fact that there is no criminal antecedent of the petitioner and the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine. 6. 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. 7. 7. Now coming to the alternative argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act may be granted to the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner is not a habitual offender and there is no criminal antecedent, what so ever, except the present one. Having regard to the circumstances of this case and the character of the offender, I am of the considered opinion that sending the petitioner back to prison will not serve any fruitful purpose and it is expedient to release him on probation. 8. As a result, the petitioner is directed to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The petitioner shall file two sureties to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- coupled with personal bond to the effect that he shall not commit any offence and shall be of good behavior and shall maintain peace during the period of two years. If there is breach of any conditions, he will subject himself to undergo sentence as directed by the learned trial court. The bond aforesaid be filed by the petitioner within three months from the date of this judgment. 9. The petitioner is further directed to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- before the learned trial court which shall be paid as compensation to the informant-wife in view of Section 357(1)(C) of Cr.P.C. The petitioner is directed to pay the aforesaid fine of Rs. 50,000/- within a period of three months from today before the learned trial court and the learned trial court after noticing the informant-wife shall pay the same to her after due formalities. 10. It is made clear that if the aforesaid amount is not paid within the stipulated period, the petitioner shall serve the rest of sentence as directed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions the instant revision application is disposed of. 12. The petitioner is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. 13. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.