Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1278 (JHR)

Sukhari Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2022-11-02

NAVNEET KUMAR

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.08.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. 1, Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Trial Case No. 121/2000, in connection with Gomia P.S. Case No. 88 of 1999, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 705 of 1999 at Bokaro, Jharkhand, whereby and where under the appellants were held guilty for the offence punishable u/s 324/342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) and they were sentenced to undergo two years Simple Imprisonment (hereinafter referred to as S.I.) under section 324 of IPC and six months S.I. and a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) for the offence punishable under section 342 of IPC and in case of default of the payment of said amount of fine the appellants were directed to undergo further imprisonment for three months and it was further directed that the sentence awarded to the appellants shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in brief is based upon the fardbeyan given by Meena Devi (informant PW-8) to the police on 23.09.1999 at about 13.00 hrs. at C.C.L. hospital, Kathara. It has been alleged that on 22.09.1999 the informant's husband returned home at about 8 P.M. in the night in a drunken condition. He abused and assaulted her. She did not had food in the night. At about 11.30-12 O’ clock in the night, her husband Madan Yadav alongwith her Gotni Sukhari Devi reached there and started abusing her. She was also assaulted and kerosene oil which was kept in a gallon, was poured upon her. Sukhari Devi lighted the match-stick and threw on her body. Her clothes caught fire. Both the accused persons were standing on the door and she was not allowed to go outside. Somehow, she managed to extinguish the fire but in the process she became unconscious. At about 3.30 A.M. in the morning when she regained consciousness, she somehow manage to leave the house and went to her Mausa's house, situated in Jhirki. Her Mausa and other family members carried her to the hospital for proper treatment. She had given the reason behind this incident as her husband Madan Yadav was living with her Gotni Sukhari Devi and prior to this incident both of them had beaten her several times. Her Mausa and other family members carried her to the hospital for proper treatment. She had given the reason behind this incident as her husband Madan Yadav was living with her Gotni Sukhari Devi and prior to this incident both of them had beaten her several times. Yesterday, both of them have tried to commit her murder. She sustained burn injuries on her right chest, back, stomach and on her hands and legs. 3. On the basis of this fardbeyan the case was instituted vide Gomia P.S. Case no. 88/1999 under sections 323, 342, 326, 307 and 498(A) of IPC and the matter was investigated. On completion of investigation chargesheet was submitted under section 323, 342, 326, 307 and 498(A) of IPC. After taking the cognizance the case was committed to the court of Sessions. Learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge Bermo at Tenughat had framed charge on 07.03.2001 under sections 307, 326, 342 and 498(A) of IPC. 4. The learned trial court after conducting the full-fledged trial passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is under challenge in this appeal. 5. Heard Mr. Atanu Banerjee, the learned counsel for the appellants assisted by Mr. Suman Kumar Ghosh, the learned counsel, Mr. Md. Hatim, for the informant and Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned Addl. P.P. for the State. Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants 6. Learned counsels appearing for the appellants at the outset submitted that the appellants do not want to argue this case on merit and therefore he confined his argument on the point of sentence. It is further submitted that the appellants were charged for the offences punishable under sections 307, 326 and 342 & 498 (A) of IPC, and after conducting the full-fledge trial both the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable u/s 324 and 342 of IPC. Further it has also been submitted on behalf of the appellants that both the husband(the appellant no.2) and wife (informant Meena Devi) are now separated and wife Meena Devi has also solemnized another marriage and, therefore, it is urged on behalf of the appellants that no useful purpose would be served to impose the sentence of imprisonment and instead of awarding the sentence of imprisonment both the appellants may be sentenced to pay fine by way of compensation in order to give it to his the then wife (now dissolved). In this view of the matter the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that let this appeal be disposed of by awarding the sentence fine by way of compensation to P.W. 8 informant Meena Devi. Arguments advanced on behalf of the State 7. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P. appearing on behalf of the State assisted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant did not controvert the fact that the informant Meena Devi P.W.8 had solemnized another marriage after having been separated from the appellant no. 2 and they are living peacefully. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant also submitted that in view of the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants, let this appeal be disposed of by way of imposing the sentence of fine by way of compensation to be given to the informant P.W. 8. Appraisal and Findings 8. Having heard the parties, perused the record of this case including Lower Court Record. 9. It is found that it is a matrimonial dispute which has been culminated and P.W. 8 (informant) wife living separately form the husband appellant no. 2 and there is nothing on record to show the criminal history of the appellants. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has confined his argument and submission on the point of sentence and therefore the conviction for the offence punishable u/s 324 of IPC & 342 of IPC is sustained. So far as the sentence is concerned, it is found that it was basically a matrimonial dispute and the appellant no. 2 and the informant P.W. 8 have been living separately from each other and living their personal life. 10. A supplementary affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the appellants stating therein that the appellant no. 1 is the sister-in-law (widow Bhabhi) of the appellant no. 2 and the appellant no. 1 was aged about 60 years and she is the mother of the two sons and 2 daughters and both of the daughters of the appellant no. 1 are married. Further it has also been pointed out that Seema Yadav born from the wedlock of the appellant no. 2 and the appellant no. 1 was aged about 60 years and she is the mother of the two sons and 2 daughters and both of the daughters of the appellant no. 1 are married. Further it has also been pointed out that Seema Yadav born from the wedlock of the appellant no. 2 and the informant Meena Devi P.W. 8 and said Seema Devi also got married with one Deepak Yadav in 2013 and out of the said wedlock a girl child has also born. Further it has also been pointed out that the informant had married with one Kashi Yadav, S/o Sri Mangar Mahto, R/o Vill. Gega, P.O. +P.S.-Petarbar, Dist.-Bokaro and this fact has also not been controverted by the learned counsel for the informant who appeared in this appeal. 11. It has also been stated that in the year 2007 the appellant no. 2 has also solemnized marriage with one Reena Devi and two children were born out of the said wedlock. The appellant no. 2 and the informant are living separately. Therefore under the facts and circumstances of the case, it is found just and fair to impose the sentence of fine instead of sentence of imprisonment after sustaining the conviction as held by the learned trial court. 12. In the backdrop, this Court upholds the Judgment of conviction dated 02.08.2004 and sets aside order of sentence dated 02.08.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. 1, Bermo at Tenughat in S.T. No. 121/2000, in connection with Gomia P.S. Case No. 88 of 1999, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 705 of 1999 at Bokaro at Jharkhand. 13. So far as the sentence is concerned, it has been pointed out that both the parties (the appellant No. 2 and informant) are living separately from each other and living their personal life and there is nothing on record to show about the criminal history of appellants and further it is also found that this incident has taken place in the year 1999 and as such they have been suffering from the trauma and misery of criminal prosecution from a long period of time of 23 years and over a period of time, appellant no.1 Sukhari Devi has reached to age of 63 years and appellant no. 2 has reached to his middle age and, therefore, due to these mitigating circumstances a lenient view is taken in awarding the sentence after upholding guilt u/s 324 and 342 of IPC. In this view of the matter, it is found that no useful purpose would be served to send them (the appellants) again in jail and instead of awarding the sentence of imprisonment, the purpose of justice would be meted out if the appellants are sentenced to fine to be imposed by way of compensation in order to compensate the informant. Accordingly order of sentenced passed by the learned court below under both the counts u/ss 324 & 342 of IPC against both the appellants is set aside and this Court alters the sentence by only imposing sentence of fine collectively upon both the appellants under all the heads/counts (both u/ss 324 & 342 of IPC) by way of compensation to a sum of Rs. 5,000 (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to be given to P.W.8 - Informant Meena Devi wife of Kashi Yadav R/o Vill. Gega, P.O.+P.S.-Petarbar, Dist.-Bokaro Jharkhand. Since the appellants are on bail they are given four months’ time from the date of this judgment to deposit the fine amount by way of compensation as awarded to them. 14. In case of default of payment of fine amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand Only) by way compensation in order to give it to informant PW-8 Meena Devi so awarded by this Court within the stipulated period of time, each of the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year (one year). The learned trial court is directed to ensure that the said fine amount is deposited within the stipulated period of time and if the same is not deposited by the appellants, they will serve the sentence as awarded in case of default of payment of fine so awarded, and the learned trial court by taking all necessary measures as per the provisions of law is directed to ensure that each of the appellants serves the sentence of imprisonment in case of default of payment of fine. 15. The appellants may be allowed to deposit the said fine amount through the Nazarat of the concerned Civil Court. 15. The appellants may be allowed to deposit the said fine amount through the Nazarat of the concerned Civil Court. At the moment they deposit the fine amount, they (the appellants) shall be released forthwith on deposit of the said fine amount and they shall be discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds accordingly. The learned court below is also directed that on deposit of the said fine amount by the appellants, the notice will be sent to the informant P.W.8-Meena Devi in order to disburse the fine amount and on her appearance the said fine amount, if so deposited by the appellants, shall be disbursed to her accordingly. In case, if the said informant P.W.8-Meena Devi is not traceable or not available or not found at the given address or does not appear before the court, the same shall be disbursed either to the close or near relatives or kith and kin of the said informant P.W.8, as the concerned learned trial court may deem fit and proper. 16. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as above. 17. Let the copy of the judgment be sent to the learned court below along with the Lower Court Records to do needful and for its compliance in this regard in letter and spirit.