High Court allowed criminal revision petition filed by accused-applicants convicted and sentenced for dowry harassment and cruelty. Court reduced sentence to the period already undergone due to oldness of case (1998) and time spent in jail.
Sentence imposed on applicants reduced to the period already undergone in jail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Revision No.132 of 2005
All of resident of Pakhanjure, District Kanker (C.G.)
---- Applicants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate Kanker District Kanker (C.G.)
---- Respondent
–----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For the Applicants : Mrs. Ranjana Jaiswal, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. A.N. Bhakta Dy. Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vimla Singh Kapoor Order on Board
13.02.2019
The judgment under challenge in this revision petition is dated 11.03.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Kanker, in Criminal Appeal No. 46/2004, affirming the judgment dated 27.04.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class Bhanupratappur, in Criminal Case No. 427/1998, convicting the accused/applicants under Sections 498-A/34 IPC and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentencing them to undergo RI for 6 months with fine of Rs. 100/- u/s. 498-A/34 IPC, RI for 6 months
2
with fine of Rs. 100/- u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act plus default stipulation.
2 . Facts of the case, in short, are that immediately after marriage of the complainant with the applicant No.1, he alongwith other accused persons started harassing her raising demand of Rs. 50,000/-.It is alleged that even after the complainant took Rs. 12,000/- from her parents and gave it to the accused/applicants, they did not stop there cruel behaviour towards her and continued harassing her in order to get their demand fulfilled. Ultimately, on matter being reported to the Police, offences under Section 323, 498-A/34 IPC and section 4 of the dowry prohibition act were registered against the accused/applications followed by challan being laid and charge framed.
3 . Learned Magistrate having perused the material before it convicted the accused/applicant under Sections 498-A/34 IPC and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced them as above, which on appeal has been affirmed by the judgment impugned. Hence, this revision.
4 . Conviction is not being pressed on merit and the sole prayer made by the counsel for the applicants is confined to reduction of sentence imposed on the accused/applicants to the period already undergone on account of the fact that the case is quite old and the accused/applicants have already remained in jail for some time.
3
5 . State counsel however, supports the findings recorded by the both the Courts below.
6. From the testimony of the witnesses including the complainant (PW-1) it appears that just after the marriage, the accused/applicants who happen to be her husband and in-laws, started treating her with cruelty for demand of Rs. 50,000/-. The said demand on their part did not cease to exit even after she got Rs. 12,000/- from her parents and paid the same to the applicants. This fact is further crystallized from the statements of the parents of PW-1. Thus, the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused/applicants subjected the complainant to cruelty just after marriage. The Courts below has been fully justified in passing the order impugned. Conviction of the accused/applicants is thus maintained.
7 . As regards sentence, keeping in view the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 1998 that the accused/applicants have already remained in jail for about a period of 22 days and further that by now they must be leading a well settled life saddled with innumerable responsibilities, this Court thinks it proper to reduce the sentence imposed on them to the period already undergone.
8 . With the above, the revision stands allowed in part.
Sd/-
(Vimla Singh Kapoor) JUDGE
Jyotishi/santosh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the sentence imposed under Sections 498-A IPC and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act should be reduced to the period already undergone.
Whether the revision petition is maintainable for reduction of sentence on the ground of age of the case.
Sanjeev Chakravorty
Narayan Chakravorty
Jharna Chakravorty
State of Chhattisgarh
Vimla Singh Kapoor
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
