Partly allowed

Pushpa Devi And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC22 Nov 2022Cr.Rev./710/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision against conviction under Section 498A IPC, the High Court of Jharkhand upheld the conviction but modified the sentence to fine and period undergone, dismissing the abatement plea for the surviving petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The sentence is modified to pay a fine of Rs.15,000 within four months; on default, serve the remaining sentence. Discharge from bail bond upon payment.

Pushpa Devi And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No.710 of 2009

¶2

¶3

Pushpa Devi

¶4

Dhananjay Prasad ..… Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Mamta Gupta ….. Opp. Parties

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶9

¶10

For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Karan, Advocate Mr. M.B.Lal, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P.

¶11

04/22.11.2022 As per the service report of the notice issued by this court vide order dated 20.09.2022, Petitioner No.1 has died.

¶12

2. In view of the above fact, the instant criminal revision stands dismissed as abated against Petitioner No.1.

¶13

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

4. This criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 16.07.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 213 of 2007, dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.08.2007, passed by the S.D.J.M., Dhanbad in G.R. Case No. 157/2000, corresponding to T.R. No. 203 of 2007, whereby the petitioner has been convicted under Section 498A and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine petitioner was directed to undergo S.I. for two months.

¶15

5. The prosecution case in brief is that complainant Mamta Gupta lodged written report stating that after her marriage to Petitioner No. 2, her husband and in-laws started torturing her mentally and physically for dowry and on the basis of above charges police registered the case under Section 498 A of the I.P.C and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition act.

¶16

6. At the outset, Mr. Rajiv Kumar Karan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not habitual offenders and he also remained in custody for about

¶17

-2-

¶18

52 days. As such, he has confined his prayer only on the question of sentence as the occurrence is of the year 2000 and the petitioner is now middle aged person and sending him back to jail at this stage even for a short period will hamper the entire family; as such the sentence may be modified for the period already undergone.

¶19

7. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment and submits that there is no error in the finding given by the Trial Court. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside, however, the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.

¶20

8. 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 findings of the court below and as such the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby, sustained.

¶21

9. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 2000 and 23 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for all these years. 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 and he also remained in custody for 52 days.

¶22

10. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner/convict back to prison; rather interest of justice would be sufficed if the sentence is modified in lieu of fine. 11. Thus, the sentence passed by the court below is hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioner- Dhananjay Prasad is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone, subject to the payment of fine of Rs.15,000/-.

¶23

-3-

¶24

12. The petitioner- Dhananjay Prasad shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.15,000/- within a period of four months from today before the Secretary, D.L.S.A., Dhanbad, failing which he shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court. 13. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bond subject to the fulfillment of the aforesaid condition.

¶25

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

¶26

15. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the court below, the Secretary, D.L.S.A., Dhanbad and also to the petitioner through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station.

¶27

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

¶28

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶29

sm/

Pushpa Devi And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpa Devi And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand

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

Bhola Sharma Vs State of Jharkhand

Sita Ram Sah Vs State of Jharkhand

Himanshu Pandey And Ors. Vs State of Jhakhand

Balvinder Pal Singh Math Balvinder Pd.Singh Vs Manjeet Kour Manju

Manoj Rai Vs State of Jharkhand

Shivlal Singh And Anr. 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

Bhola Sharma Vs State of Jharkhand

Sita Ram Sah Vs State of Jharkhand

Himanshu Pandey And Ors. Vs State of Jhakhand

Balvinder Pal Singh Math  Balvinder Pd.Singh Vs Manjeet Kour  Manju

Manoj Rai Vs State of Jharkhand

Shivlal Singh And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Balvinder Pal Singh Math Balvinder Pd.Singh Vs Manjeet Kour Manju