Ramniwas and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The applicants have preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 10.08.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.) Pendra Road, District Bilaspur, C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.47/2009, affirming the judgment dated 21.12.2009 passed in Criminal Case No.55/2009 by the Judicial Magistrate First class, Marwahi, District, Bilaspur, C.G., whereby the applicants were convicted under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.500/- each, in

¶18

2 / 4

¶19

default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional simple imprisonment for one month to each applicants.

¶20

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the marriage between the applicant No.1 Ramniwas and complainant Preeti (PW-1) was solemnized five years prior to 30.09.2008 and out of their wedlock, one son and daughter were born. After some time of marriage, applicants used to harass and torture her physically and mentally on account of demand of dowry and being fed up with the persistent ill-treatment made by the applicants, she lodged a written report (Ex.P-1) at police station Marwahi, District Bilaspur on 30.09.2008. On the basis of written report (Ex.P-1), FIR (Ex.P-2) has been lodged against the applicants.

¶21

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. The applicants abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty.

¶22

Learned court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. The said judgment was challenged by the applicants in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 10.08.2010, dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment of the JMFC. Hence, this revision.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that he does not want to press this revision on merits and confines his argument to the sentence part only. He further submits that applicants have remained in jail for 21 days i.e. from 03.10.2008 to 14.10.2008 (12 days) and from 10.08.2010 to 18.08.2010 (9 days), they have no criminal antecedents and they are facing the lis since October, 2008 i.e. for more than 16 years. He also submits that fine amount has already been deposited by

¶24

3 / 4

¶25

the applicants. He also submits that although complainant (PW-1) is residing at her parental home, but as per her convenience, she visits the house of applicants to meet her children and applicant No.1 never objected her and relations between the complainant and applicant No.1 are cordial. Therefore, it is prayed by counsel for the applicants that the jail sentence awarded to applicants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶26

On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgment.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record.

¶28

Considering the statements of the complainant- Preeti (PW-1) i.e. wife of applicant No.1 supported with the statements of her parents, namely, Dharam Ram (PW-2) and Ramkali (PW-3) i.e. father and mother of the complainant respectively and the other evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the Court of JMFC Court as well as Appellate Court, being based on the evidence available on record, is a correct finding. Therefore, I hereby affirm the said finding of conviction of applicants.

¶29

As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the fact that the applicants have remained in jail for 21 days i.e. from 03.10.2008 to 14.10.2008 (12 days) and from 10.08.2010 to 18.08.2010 (9 days), they have no criminal antecedents and they are facing the lis since October, 2008 i.e. for more than 16 years, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon applicants, the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period

¶30

4 / 4

¶31

already undergone by them. However, the fine amount with default sentence imposed by the Court of JMFC as well as Appellate Court for the aforesaid offence shall remain intact.

¶32

Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of applicants under the aforementioned Section is affirmed and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them.

¶33

Since the applicants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

( Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE

¶36

Akhilesh

Ramniwas and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramniwas and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Divisional Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited Vs Hari Singh Rajpoot

Kamlesh Sahu Vs Rakesh Sahu

Smt. Meenabai Vs Omprakash

Jagat Ram Sidar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gourishankar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Vikash Awadholiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh