Allowed

Jai Krishan Mahto And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC22 Apr 2022Cr.Rev./376/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court sustained the conviction of two elderly petitioners for cruelty under Section 498-A IPC but modified the sentence from rigorous imprisonment to a fine of Rs. 3500/- each.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified from rigorous imprisonment to payment of fine of Rs. 3500/- each within four months; otherwise, remaining sentence to be served.

Jai Krishan Mahto And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Revision No. 376 of 2003

¶4

¶5

Jay Krishan Mahto 2. Lalit Narayan Mahto ….. …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sushma Devi ….. ….Opposite Parties CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------For the Petitioner :Mr. Aashish Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party-State :Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, APP

¶6

07/22.04.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. Pursuant to the order dated 7.2.2022, notice was issued to O.P.No.2 for her appearance, however report has been received which shows that O.P.No.2 has left the said address without any information.

¶7

In view of the aforesaid fact, the matter is being heard without O.P.No.2.

¶8

3. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 20.12.2002, passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No.2, Godda, in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2002; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.2.2002 passed by the learned SDJM, Godda, in G.R. No.523/1999, T.R. No.456 of 2002; whereby the petitioners along with two others were convicted and sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 498-A IPC with a fine of Rs.500/- each and in case of default in payment of fine further to undergo one month S.I.; has been affirmed against these two petitioners, however acquitting Kinia Devi and Sushila Mahato and the appeal filed by the petitioners was partly allowed.

¶9

4. The prosecution case in short is that the informant-Sushma Devi was married with petitioner No.2Lalit Narayan Mahto on 29.6.1993 according to Hindu custom and rites. Just on the next day of marriage she was surprised to hear the demand for motorcycle as was said to

¶10

¶11

have been promised by her father. Thereafter, the petitioners along with their family members started torturing the informant for demand of motorcycle and on non-fulfillment of demand all the accused persons assaulted her and sent her to her parental home.

¶12

On the basis of the complaint, Mahagama P.S. Case No.46 of 1999 for the offence under Section 498 A IPC was registered and after investigation police submitted charge-sheet for the said offence. After taking cognizance the case was transferred to the then SDJM, Godda for disposal and the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and finally they were convicted.

¶13

5. At the outset, Mr. Aashish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are not habitual offenders and the allegation is not serious in nature. Now the petitioners are aged about 72 years & 50 years respectively and they also remained in custody for Eight days and 26 days respectively; as such, he is confining his prayer only on the question of sentence and since the petitioners are now an aged/middle aged persons; sending them back to jail at this stage even for short period will hamper the entire family; as such the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.

¶14

6. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgments and submits that there is no error in the findings given by the courts below. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside, however the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.

¶15

7. After going through the impugned judgment including the lower court records and keeping in mind the limited submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the scope of 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 against these two petitioners, is hereby, sustained.

¶16

8. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1999

¶17

¶18

and about 22 years have elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 22 years. It is not stated that the petitioners have ever misused the privilege of bail. Further, the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part of the petitioners or any mental depravity and they also remained in custody for few days.

¶19

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

¶20

10. Thus, the sentence passed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court is, hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioners are sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone, subject to the payment of fine of Rs. 3500/- each.

¶21

11 . It is made clear that petitioners shall pay the aforesaid fine within a period of 4 months from today before the court below, Godda; failing which they shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned Trial Court.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below and also to the petitioners through the officer-incharge of concerned police station.

¶25

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

¶26

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶27

Fahim /-

Jai Krishan Mahto And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Krishan Mahto And Anr. 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

Madan Lal Rawani Vs State of Jharkhand

Anirudh Parmanik Anirudh Vidyarthi Vs State of Jharkhand

Bala Devi Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Tipu Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Nand Kishore Panjiyara And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Sant Bahadur Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Madan Lal Rawani Vs State of Jharkhand

Anirudh Parmanik  Anirudh Vidyarthi Vs State of Jharkhand

Bala Devi Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Tipu Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Nand Kishore Panjiyara And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Sant Bahadur Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Anirudh Parmanik Anirudh Vidyarthi Vs State of Jharkhand