Partly allowed

Netai Bauri v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC10 Dec 2020Cr.Rev./659/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Jharkhand revisited a conviction under Section 498A IPC. The Court modified the sentence due to the petitioner's age (over 70), prolonged custody period (26 years), and settlement of the dispute, ordering release from custody.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released from custody forthwith. Sentence reduced to the period already undergone (7 months 18 days).

Netai Bauri Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No.659 of 2002

----

Netai Bauri

… Petitioner

-versus-

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Bijli Baurin … Opposite Parties ----

¶8

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING

¶9

----

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the State: Md. Hatim, A.P.P.

¶11

----

¶12

15/ 10.12.2020 This revision application is directed against the judgment 09.09.2002 passed by the 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Cr. Appeal No.88 of 2000, whereby and whereunder petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to go R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/- only and in default of payment of fine, S.I. of 1 month, for offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, thereby confirming the judgment dated 03.08.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Bokaro in C.P. Case No.06 of 1994.

¶13

2. When the matter was listed on 02.12.2020, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not challenging the judgment of conviction, rather he will confine this revision application and the prayer only on the point of sentence. Today the matter is being heard at length.

¶14

3. On the point of sentence, counsel for the petitioner submits that the sentence is too harsh. He submits that one year rigorous imprisonment is on the higher side. He submits that no proper hearing on the point of sentence was given to the petitioner. He submits that no cogent reasons have been assigned as to why imprisonment of 1 year was inflicted upon this petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the parties have already settled their dispute and the wife is living in the house of the convict.

¶15

4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that the petitioner has been rightly inflicted punishment as there is ample evidence to suggest cruelty and torture. He submits that one year sentence is the bare minimum, which the Magistrate could have inflicted on the petitioner.

¶16

5. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I have gone through the records. In I.A. No. 5304 of 2020, petitioner has annexed a document, which is

¶17

-: 2 :-

¶18

an affidavit sworn by the wife of this petitioner, which suggests that she has compromised and is residing with the husband, i.e., the petitioner. The dispute is matrimonial in nature and the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. He has remained in custody for 7 months 18 days.

¶19

6. Considering the fact of settlement and the period of custody and further considering that the petitioner has faced rigors of this proceeding for nearly 26 years coupled with the fact that the petitioner is aged about more than 70 years, I am inclined to modify the sentence awarded to the petitioner vide judgment and order of sentence dated 03.08.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Bokaro in C.P. Case No.06 of 1994, as confirmed by the judgment dated 09.09.2002 passed by the 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Cr. Appeal No.88 of 2000, and convert the same to the period already undergone by the petitioner.

¶20

7. This criminal revision application is, thus, partly allowed to the above extent. Petitioner is directed to be released from the custody forthwith.

¶21

(Ananda Sen, J.)

¶22

Kumar/Cp-03

Netai Bauri v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Netai Bauri 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

Hifza Arif Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Sao Bari Alias Sahu Bari And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Chunni Ram Mahto Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Manish Singh Alias Manish Kr Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Binod Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Sanjay Ghosh Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.