Allowed

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

Jharkhand HC14 Feb 2020Cr.Rev./670/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court Bench allowed a revision application challenging the conviction and modified sentence for 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act offences. The Court confirmed convictions but reduced the remaining sentence liability to a consolidated fine of Rs. 10,000.

What did the court decide?

The sentence is modified to stand subject to the payment of a consolidated fine of Rs. 10,000 within two months; petitioners are discharged from bail bonds liability upon fulfillment.

Abdul Ansari And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 670 of 2002

¶3

Abdul Ansari

¶4

Malu Bibi

¶5

Muslim Ansari

¶6

Younus Ansari ..… Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand

¶9

Abjun Bibi ….. Opposite Parties

¶10

-----

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶12

----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, APP For the O.P. No.2 : None

¶13

-----

¶14

10/ 14.02.2020 Mr. Ashish Kumar, learned counsel appears for the petitioner and Mrs. Lily Sahay, learned APP appears for the State. No one appears for the opposite party No.2. Even on 20.11.2019 and 24.01.2020, the opposite party No.2 was not represented by any counsel.

¶15

Vide order dated 20.11.2019, it was specifically indicated that if the opposite party No.2 will not appear in this case, either in person or through any lawyer, then the case will be proceeded ex-parte against her. Faced with this situation, this Court is proceeding ex-parte against the opposite party No.2.

¶16

The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 30.08.2002, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No.79 of 1996, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed with modification in sentence.

¶17

The learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Dhanbad vide its judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.05.1996, passed in G.R. No.690 of 1991, corresponding to T.R. No.178 of 1996, convicted the petitioners for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and they were directed to undergo RI for 3 years for the charge under Section 498 A IPC with fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of fine, they were ordered to undergo RI for one month each and they were further directed to undergo RI for 6 months and to pay a fine

¶18

-2-

¶19

of Rs.500/- each for the charge under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶20

The learned appellate Court while sustaining the conviction of the petitioners, modified the sentences to the extent that the petitioners were directed to undergo RI for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/- each for the charge under Section 498A IPC and to undergo RI for 6 months with fine of Rs.500/- each for the charge under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a joint compromise petition was filed way back in the year 1998 which is annexed as Annexure 1 to this memo of appeal. However, the same was not taken into consideration by the learned appellate court as the offence are not compoundable. He further submits that now it is a settled proposition of law that the fact of the compromise can be taken into consideration for the purpose of reducing the sentences of the accused. He concluded his argument by submitting that the petitioners may be discharged from the offences subject to payment of fine.

¶22

Per contra, the learned APP though supports the impugned judgments but could not dispute the contents of the compromise petition as annexed in the Annexure-1 to the application. She fairly submits that sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned APP for the State.

¶24

After going through the impugned judgments including lower court records and keeping in mind the limited submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners 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.

¶25

However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1991 and

¶26

-3-

¶27

almost 29 years have elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 29 years and also remained in custody for considerable time. It is not stated that the petitioners have ever misused the privilege of bail.

¶28

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

¶29

Thus, the sentence modified by the appellate court is, hereby, further modified to the extent that the petitioners are sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone subject to the payment of consolidated fine of Rs.10,000/-.

¶30

It is made clear that the petitioners shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.10,000/- jointly, within a period of 2 months from today before the learned Secretary, DLSA, Dhanbad.

¶31

With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence only, this revision application is disposed of.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

Let the copy of this order be communicated to the courts below, the Secretary, DLSA, Dhanbad and also to the petitioners, namely Abdul Ansari, Malu Bibi, Muslim Ansari and Younus Ansari through the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station.

¶35

(Deepak Roshan, J)

¶36

Pramanik/

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Ansari And Ors. 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.

Ram Kripal Tiwari Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Lakhan Mandal and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand