Partly allowed

Ram Kripal Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC14 Feb 2020Cr.Rev./572/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against conviction for Section 498A IPC. Court confirmed conviction but modified sentence from imprisonment to a fine of Rs. 40,000/- payable to wife within 5 months, acknowledging 24 years elapsed and no bail misuse.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified: petitioner sentenced to undergo period already undergone but must pay fine of Rs. 40,000/- within 5 months. Petitioner discharged from bail liability.

Ram Kripal Tiwari Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr. — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 572 of 2003 Ram Kripal Tiwari ….. Petitioner

¶2

Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Usha Devi ….. Opposite Parties ----CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Subodh Kr. Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, APP For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. K.K. Mishra, Advocate

¶3

-----

¶4

15/ 14.02.2020 The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 06.06.2003, passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Criminal Appeal No.36 of 2000/ 3 of 2002, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.04.2000, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st class, Madhupur in G.R. No.257 of 1996, corresponding to T.R. No.172 of 2000, whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced for the said charge, has been affirmed.

¶5

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to press this application on merit, rather he confines his argument on the question of sentence. He further submits that he has never misused the privilege of bail and at present he is aged about 55 years and sending him back to prison shall not be fruitful. He further submits that the petitioner is regularly paying the maintenance to the O.P No.2, as such some leniency may be granted by this Court by converting the sentence into fine only.

¶6

Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 though supports the impugned judgment but fairly admitted that if some amount will be awarded by this Court to the O.P. No.2 as compensation, she will get some relief.

¶7

The learned APP though supports the impugned

¶8

-2-

¶9

judgment but submits that the petitioner has never misused the privilege of bail.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 and the learned APP for the State.

¶11

After going through the impugned judgments including the lower court records and keeping in mind the limited submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the scope of the revision jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of the courts below and as such the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby, confirmed.

¶12

However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1996 and about 24 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 24 years and also remained in custody for 20 days. It is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail. Further, the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part of the petitioner or any mental depravity.

¶13

In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the accused person back to prison rather interest of justice would be sufficed if the sentence is modified in lieu of fine.

¶14

Thus, the sentence passed by the Court below is, hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone, subject to the payment of fine of Rs.40,000/-.

¶15

It is made clear that the petitioner shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.40,000/- within a period of 5 months from today either directly to the informant-wife or before the learned trial court which shall be paid to the informant-wife.

¶16

With the aforesaid observations, directions and

¶17

-3-

¶18

modification in sentence only, this revision application is disposed of.

¶19

The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bonds, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.

¶20

Let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.

¶21

Let the copy of this order be communicated to the court below and also to the petitioner-Ram Kripal Tiwari and the O.P. No.2-Usha Devi through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station.

¶22

(Deepak Roshan, J)

¶23

Pramanik/

Ram Kripal Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kripal Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

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

Narendra Kumar Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajay Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Niranjan Murmu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bom Mandal and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Lakhan Mandal and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abdul Ansari And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.