Partly allowed

Jagjit Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC8 Nov 2023Cr.Rev./739/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Cr. Rev. No. 739 of 2012, Happy Bench allowed the petition partially, setting aside the conviction while upholding the factual findings. After a dispute regarding section 498-A IPC was settled via a compromise agreement, the High Court directed release of petitioners after admonition and reduced the remaining sentence for one petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Conviction sustained but sentence set aside. Petitioners released after admonition; Lakhbir Singh's sentence reduced to time served.

Jagjit Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Matrimonial and Divorce | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Revision No. 739 of 2012

¶4

Jagjit Singh

¶5

Manjit Singh

¶6

Lakhbir Singh … … Petitioners
- Versus -
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Balbir Kaur ... … Opposite Parties
------

¶7

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶8

¶9

For the Petitioners : M/s. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate For the State : M/s. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : M/s. Vikas Kumar, Advocate : M/s. Parambir Singh, Advocate

¶10

¶11

20/08.11.2023 Heard the Parties.

¶12

The petitioners have filed this criminal revision application against the judgment dated 01.08.2012, passed by Sri Deepak Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 2009, whereby and wherein, Additional Sessions Judge-III, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.05.2009, passed by Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned S.D.J.M., Jamshedpur in G.R. Case No. 377 of 2003, arising out of Golmuri P.S. Case No. 37 of 2003, holding the petitioners guilty of offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for two years, along with a fine of rupees 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, they were further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

¶13

The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of written report of the informant Balbir Kaur alleging therein that she was married to the petitioner. Lakhbir Singh on 11.12.2000 as per Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, the accused persons started demanding a color television and a motor cycle, to enforce the demand she was tortured and ultimately she was driven away from her matrimonial home. The accused persons also kept her jewelries.

¶14

In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced oral

¶15

¶16

and documentary evidence in support of its case. On the basis of the evidence, both oral and documentary available on the record, the learned S.D.J.M. Jamshedpur held the petitioners guilty and sentenced them accordingly.

¶17

Balbir Kaur has been examined as P.W.4. She has stated that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner Lakhbir Singh on 11.12.2000. After marriage, there was demand of color television, a motorcycle and a fridge and to enforce the demand she was tortured. The matter was also referred to Gurudwara committee where the dispute was settled. However, the torture meted out to her remain unabated and ultimately, she was driven away from her matrimonial home.

¶18

In her cross examination, she has stated that the matter was referred to Gurudwara committee and a settlement paper was drawn.

¶19

Maya Kaur P.W.1, mother of the informant, Jasbir Kaur P.W.2 is sister of the informant, Balbinder Singh P.W.3 is brother of the informant. All have stated that the informant Balbir Kaur was married to the petitioner Lakhbir Singh. They have stated that after marriage, Balbir Kaur was tortured to enforce the demand of a fridge, a motorcycle and a color television and ultimately, she was driven away from her matrimonial home.

¶20

Dr. D. K. Sinha P.W.6 had examined the informant on

¶21

04.01.2003 and found two abrasions on her person.

¶22

The defence has examined Kashmir Kaur as D.W.1. She has stated that the informant did not want to reside in her matrimonial home. She wanted to go to the house of her father. Five years ago, she left her matrimonial home and did not return.

¶23

Gulshan Singh D.W.2 has stated that he never saw any dispute between the parties. Similar submission has been made by Ranjit Singh. D.W.3., Shailendra Singh D.W.4 is the president of Central Gurudwara committee, Jamshedpur. He has stated that a meeting was convened to settle the dispute between the parties on 17.02.2003. He has stated that the informant was not ready to resume her matrimonial relationship. Accordingly, the minutes of meeting was drawn to this effect and it was signed by the office bearers of Central Gurudwara Committee, Jamshedpur.

¶24

It appears from the record that vide order dated 05.08.2022, both the parties entered into a compromise and a hand

¶25

¶26

written agreement was produced before the court signed by both the parties. In the compromise note, both the parties had drawn the terms and conditions of settlement and have stated that the parties have no grievance against each other.

¶27

From the perusal of the oral evidence, adduced by the parties, it is apparent that a general and omnibus statement has been made by the informant and her family members that there was demand of dowry and to enforce the demand she was tortured and ultimately, she was driven away from her matrimonial home. The informant and his witnesses have not stated any specific date and time when she was tortured. As the matter between the parties relates to a matrimonial dispute. The parties have already settled their dispute.

¶28

The informant and her witnesses have supported the case and from the evidence on the record, it appears that the learned court below has rightly come to a finding regarding the guilt of the petitioners under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is sustained.

¶29

As the parties have already settled the dispute. The sentence passed by the learned court below is set aside.

¶30

Petitioner no. 1, Jagjit Singh and petitioner no. 2, Manjit Singh shall be released after due admonition and the sentence passed by the learned court below directing the petitioner no. 3, Lakhbir Singh to undergo simple imprisonment for two years is reduced to the period already under gone by him during the trial.

¶31

This Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed.

¶32

Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

¶33

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶34

Saurabh

¶35

Uploaded

Jagjit Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagjit Singh v. the 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

Jaynandan Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pradeep Hazra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nima Thomas Alias Nisha Densih Paul Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kaish Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prakash Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand