Partly allowed

Sanjay Kumar Bharti v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Apr 2019Cr.A(SJ)/200/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 2017, the High Court of Jharkhand addressed an appeal by an appellant convicted under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC for dowry-related harassment. The court noted the subsequent compromise between the appellant and the informant. Relying on precedent, the court held that while the conviction under the non-compoundable offence must stand, the sentence could be reduced to t

What did the court decide?

The appellant's sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. Bail bond, if any, is discharged. Conviction is maintained.

Sanjay Kumar Bharti Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Matrimonial and Divorce | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 200 of 2017

¶3

Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.01.2017 passed by the 2^nd Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Bermo at Tenughat in S.T. No. 151 of 2014.

¶4

Sanjay Kumar Bharati … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ... … Respondent ----- For the Appellant : Mrs. Vandana Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vinay Kumar Tiwary, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Gautam Raj, Advocate

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶7

-----

¶8

By Court:

¶9

The present criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.01.2017 passed by 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Trial No. 151 of 2014, whereby the appellant has been held guilty of the charges under Sections 498-A and 323 I.P.C and has been sentenced to undergo R.I for a period of two years under Section 498-A of I.P.C. He has further been directed to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the livelihood of the victim-wife and their three children. No separate sentence has been awarded under Section 323 I.P.C.

¶10

2. The case of the prosecution on the basis of the written report of the informant namely, Kavita Devi (P.W. 3) filed on 01.04.2014 at about 12.35 hours is that she was married to the appellant about 15 years ago. After some days of the marriage, the appellant and her father-in-law started subjecting her to cruelty and she was also assaulted by them for which she was medically treated at Ramgarh and Ranchi. During that time, she gave birth to three children. On 01.04.2014 at about 6.00 am, the appellant and her father-in-law started demanding cash and vehicle as dowry and on her refusal, the appellant by means of axe and her father-in-law by means of rod attacked her causing injuries over her head and other parts of the body. During the said occurrence, her father-in-law also received

¶11

¶12

some injury.

¶13

3. On the basis of the written report of the victim, an FIR being Jaridih P.S Case No. 32 of 2014 was instituted against the appellant and his father. The police submitted the charge sheet under Sections 498A, 341, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC. Thereafter, charge was framed against the appellant and his father under Sections 498A, 324 and 307 I.P.C. read with Section 34 of I.P.C.

¶14

4. Altogether four witnesses were examined in the case on behalf of the prosecution and finally, the trial court passed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant as stated in para 1. However, co-accused namely, Vijayanand Bharati – father of the appellant was acquitted of the charges.

¶15

5. The learned counsel for the appellant does not argue much on the merit of the appeal. Rather, at the outset, the learned counsel submits that the informant and the appellant have amicably compromised the dispute and now the informant is living happily with the appellant in the matrimonial home. It is further prayed that in view of the subsequent development in the matter, the parties may be allowed to compound the case and the present appeal may be disposed of on the basis of the said compromise.

¶16

6. In the case of “Manohar Singh Vs. State of M.P.” reported in (2014) 13 SCC 75 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

¶17

“8. In the instant case, the appellant is convicted under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo six months' imprisonment. He is convicted under Section 4 of the Dowry Act and sentenced to undergo six months' imprisonment. Substantive sentences are to run concurrently. Even though the appellant and the respondent 2 wife have arrived at a compromise, the order of conviction cannot be quashed on that ground because the offences involved are non-compoundable. However, in such a situation if the court feels that the parties have a real desire to bury the hatchet in the interest of peace, it can reduce the sentence of the accused to the sentence already undergone. Section 498-A IPC does not prescribe any minimum punishment. Section 4 of the Dowry Act prescribes minimum punishment of six months but proviso thereto states that the court may, for adequate or special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term which

¶18

¶19

may be less than six months. Therefore, sentence of the appellant can be reduced to sentence already undergone by him.

¶20

9. Now the question is whether a case for reduction of sentence is made out particularly when the appellant has undergone only seven days' sentence out of six months' sentence imposed on him. We see no reason why in this case we should not reduce the appellant's sentence to sentence already undergone by him. There can be no doubt about the genuine nature of compromise between the appellant and Respondent 2 wife. The appellant has offered to pay a sum of Rs 2,50,000 to Respondent 2 wife as compensation. A demand draft drawn in the name of Respondent 2 is brought to the Court. As directed by us even litigation costs of Rs 25,000 have been deposited by the appellant in the Court. Respondent 2 wife has appeared in this Court on more than one occasion and requested this Court to take compromise into consideration and pass appropriate orders. The learned counsel for the parties have requested us to take a kind view of the matter. The affidavit filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh opposing the prayer of the parties does not impress us.

¶21

10. We must also note that the trial court had acquitted the appellant. Though the Sessions Court reversed the order and convicted the appellant for two years, the High Court reduced the sentence to six months. The appellant and Respondent 2 were married in 2007. About seven years have gone by. Considering all these circumstances, in the interest of peace and amity, we are of the opinion that the appellant's sentence must be reduced to the sentence already undergone by him.

¶22

11. In the circumstances, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 498-A IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Act is maintained but the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the sentence already undergone by him, subject to the condition that the appellant pays a sum of Rs 2,50,000 (Rupees two lakh fifty thousand only) to Respondent 2 wife as compensation. The impugned order stands modified to the above extent. We must note that a demand draft in the sum of Rs 2,50,000 drawn in the name of Respondent 2 Reena has been handed over to her counsel by the learned counsel for the appellant on 18-7-2014. In view of this, bail bond of the appellant, if any, stands discharged.”

¶23

7. Thus, the order of conviction cannot be set-aside at the appellate stage either in compoundable or non-compoundable offences. However, on the fact of any particular case, if it appears to

¶24

¶25

the court that the parties have a real desire to bury the hatchet, it can reduce the sentence of the accused to the sentence already undergone in the interest of peace.

¶26

8. In the present case, though Section 498-A I.P.C. is non-compoundable, I.A No. 1438 of 2019 has been filed containing the affidavits of both the appellant and the informant wherein it has specifically been stated that they have amicably resolved their dispute and presently the informant is living at her matrimonial home with the present appellant.

¶27

9. On perusal of the LCR, it appears that the present appellant has undergone more than fourteen months out of the sentence of two years awarded to him and there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 498-A I.P.C.

¶28

10. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, the conviction of the accused as awarded by the trial court is maintained. However, the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Accordingly, the bail bond of the appellant, if any, stands discharged.

¶29

11. The present criminal appeal stands disposed of.

¶30

I.A. No. 1438 of 2019 also stands disposed of.

¶31

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶32

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated: 04/04/2019 Manish/A.F.R.

Sanjay Kumar Bharti v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Bharti v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madan Prasad Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Saroj Kumar Suman Vs State of Jharkhand

Saputlal Mehra Vs State of Jharkhand

Arjun Beldar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Maheshwar Prasad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Yogendra Prasad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand