Partly allowed

Bhaskar Rao and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Nov 2018CRR/410/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court affirmed the conviction of three appellants under Section 498-A IPC for matrimonial harassment. However, considering the delay and jail time already undergone, the Court reduced their sentence to the period already served.

What did the court decide?

Conviction affirmed, but sentence reduced to the period of jail already undergone by the applicants.

Bhaskar Rao and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Matrimonial and Divorce | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

CRR No. 410 of 2004
1. Bhaskar Rao aged 60 years, S/o Shankar Rao.
2. Smt. Premlata aged 50 years, W/o Bhaskar Rao.
3. Sabastin Rao aged 30 years, S/o Bhaskar Rao. All R/o Village Dhabakhar, P.S. Basana, District Mahasamund, CG ---- Applicants Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Basana, District – Mahasamund, CG. ---- Respondent
For Applicants : Shri Ravindra Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Shri Gary Mukhopadhyay, GA

¶4

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vimla Singh Kapoor

¶5

Order On Board

¶6

12 /11/2018

¶7

The applicants in this revision have challenged the judgment dated 13.08.2004 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge Mahasamund in Criminal Appeal No. 286/2003 arising out of the judgment dated 9.09.2003 passed by JMFC Mahasamund in Criminal Case No. 772/2001 convicting the accused/applicants u/s 498-A IPC and sentencing them to undergo RI for six months and pay of fine of Rs. 1000/- each with default stipulation.

¶8

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the accused/applicant Sabastin Rao and complainant Sheela Rao are the husband and wife and their marriage was performed on 27.12.1999. The allegation made against the applicants is that after marriage when the complainant visited her maternal home, she informed her parents about the harassment and cruelty at the hands of the accused/applicants for bringing insufficient dowry at the time of marriage. A demand for Rs. 50,000/- was also allegedly made by the accused/applicants.

¶9

On the report made by the complainant a case was registered against the applicants u/s 498-A IPC.

¶10

On being satisfied with the averments of the parties and evidence on record the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/applicants as mentioned above. The findings recorded by the trial Court have been affirmed by the lower appellate Court by the Judgment impugned, and it is that which is under challenge in this revision.

¶11

Learned counsel for the accused/applicants submits that he is not pressing this revision on merits and would confine his argument to the sentence part of the judgment impugned therein. According to him, as the incident had taken place in the year 1999, and that they have already remained in jail for a period of 14 days, no useful purpose would be served in again sending them to jail, and therefore, the jail sentence imposed upon them may be reduced to the period already undergone.

¶12

State counsel however, supports the findings recorded by both the Courts below.

¶13

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶14

Though counsel for the accused/applicants is not inclined to press the conviction of the accused/applicants on merits, this Court thinks it appropriate to refer to the evidence of the witnesses to ascertain their guilt or innocence and therefore, it proceeds to do so.

¶15

From the evidence of complainant (PW-1) which has been duly supported by PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 it is clear that just fifteen days after marriage the accused/applicants started raising demand of Rs. 50,000/- from her and thereby caused mental and physical harassment to her. The accused/applicants also taunted her for

¶16

bringing inadequate dowry in marriage. The statements of these witnesses expressing the pathetic tale of PW-1 at the hands of accused/applicants appears to be fully trustworthy and there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the same. In these circumstances, both the Courts below do not appear to have committed any error in convicting the accused/applicants under Section 498-A IPC. It is hereby affirmed.

¶17

As regards sentence, keeping in view the fact that the incident had taken place about 18 years back and the applicants have already remained in jail for a period of 14 days, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by them. Order accordingly.

¶18

Resultantly, the revision petition is hereby allowed in part with the modification in the judgment impugned as above.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

(Vimla Singh Kapoor) Judge

¶21

Jyotishi/Pawan

Bhaskar Rao and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaskar Rao and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babulal Kewat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Roshan Das Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ambar Raotiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Khunnalal

State of C.G. Vs Ramvruksha Gond

Bhuneshwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh