Disposed

Ajay Kumar Sinha v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Jharkhand HC7 Feb 2020Cr.Rev./79/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court confirmed conviction under IPC 498A upheld by appellate court but modified sentence. Conviction sustained; imprisonment replaced with fine of Rs. 30,000 payable to wife as compensation within three months.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to fine of Rs. 30,000 payable to wife within three months; petitioner discharged from bail bonds upon compliance.

Ajay Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 79 of 2014

¶3

¶4

Ajay Kumar Sinha … … Petitioner(s) Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Rinki Devi … … Opp. Party(s)

¶5

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶6

--For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Manidra Kr. Sinha, Advocate

¶7

¶8

11/07.02.2020 The instant application is directed against the judgment

¶9

dated 10.01.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No. 39 of 2012, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner along with co-convicts, has been partly allowed.

¶10

2. The learned trial court vide its judgment dated 17.01.2012, passed in C.P.Case No. 1666 of 2006, corresponding to T.R. No. 669 of 2012, convicted the petitioner along with co-convict-Laxmi Narayan Lali.

¶11

3. The learned appellate court after hearing the parties partly allowed the appeal only to the extent that the conviction under Section 498 A of the I.P.C. and sentence to undergo R.I. for three years with fine of Rs.10,000/- as against the petitioner has been sustained whereas, the co-convict-Laxmi Narayan Lali was acquitted.

¶12

4. After some arguments on merit of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner confines his argument on the question of sentence and further submits that the petitioner is not a habitual offender and this is a single case in which he has been convicted. He further submits that interest of justice would be sufficed, if the sentence is modified in lieu of fine.

¶13

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 though supports the impugned judgment, submits that some compensation may be paid to her in lieu of sentence.

¶14

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned judgments and the lower court record and keeping in mind the submission of the petitioner and also the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings given by 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.

¶15

7. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year, 2006 and more than 14 years has elapsed and it appears from record that the petitioner has remained in custody for about 86 days. Further, the record transpires that he has never misused the privilege of bail. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that sending the petitioner back to prison will not serve any fruitful purpose, rather the sentence should be modified in lieu of fine which shall be paid to the informant as compensation.

¶16

8. Thus, the sentence passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court 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. 30,000/-.

¶17

9. It is made clear that the petitioner is directed to pay the aforesaid fine of Rs. 30,000/- within a period of three months

¶18

from today either directly to the informant-wife or before the learned trial court which shall be paid to the informant-wife, failing which he shall serve rest of the sentence as directed by the learned trial court.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

13. Let this order be communicated to the learned trial court and also to the petitioner and respondent through Officer-inCharge in concerned police station.

¶23

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶24

Amardeep/-

Ajay Kumar Sinha v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar Sinha v. the 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

Bir Bahadur Choudhary Vs State of Jharkhand

Haradhan Vishwakarma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Guljar Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Narendra Kumar Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Niranjan Murmu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manju Dei and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.