Wife sought revision against the appellate court's modification of sentence imposed on her brother-in-law convicted under Sections 498-A/323 IPC, contending the statute mandates imprisonment. The court noted he had already remained in custody over two months and no dowry demand was alleged, and declined to interfere.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 228 of 2018
Janki Devi, aged about 48 years, wife of Kishore Sahu, resident of village Bhandra, P.O. + P.S. Bhandra, District Lohardaga.
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, Advocate For the Opp. Party No. 2 : Mr. A.K. Sahni, Advocate : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate ---
14 /19.09.2024
1. The learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. This revision petition has been filed against judgment dated 13.02.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2013 arising out of Bhandra P.S. Case No. 61 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 583 of 2006 (T.R. Case No. 43 of 2013). The Opposite Party No.2-Manmohan Sahu has been convicted for the offence under Section 498-A/323 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced by the learned trial court for imprisonment of one and half years with fine of Rs.5,000/- for commission of the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for three months. The opposite party No. 2 has been further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for commission of offence under section 323 of Indian Penal Code. The period of detention in which the convict was in custody has been directed to be set of.
1
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the opposite party No.2 being the brother-in-law of the petitionerInformant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 498A/323 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned trial court and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one and half years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to further undergo imprisonment for three months for commission of offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for commission of offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, but the appellate court has modified the sentence to fine only. The learned counsel has submitted that as per the provisions of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, the punishment is imprisonment and fine and therefore, there was no occasion for the appellate court to modify the sentence and confine it to payment of fine only. The learned counsel while giving the background of the case has referred to the finding of the learned trial court and has submitted that there was consistent evidence on record that the petitioner was not permitted to live with her husband who was deaf and dumb and she was also assaulted.
4. While referring to the provisions of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, the learned counsel has submitted that the conviction of the opposite party No.2 would fall under the Explanation (a) to the section. He further submits that there was physical assault as well as mental cruelty as the petitioner was deprived from living with her husband and therefore, the sentence which has been modified by the learned appellate court calls for interference.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No.2 has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the opposite party No.2 has remained in custody for a period about 3 months. However, he is not aware about the exact period of custody. He has submitted that since the opposite party No.2 has remained in custody for some period, it cannot be said that the opposite party No.2 has not served any sentence of imprisonment. The learned counsel submits that
2
considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned judgment modifying the sentence does not call for any interference.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate court has modified the sentence and has directed the Opposite Party No.2 to pay Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner by way of victim compensation with default clause. He has submitted that the provisions of Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code provides for imprisonment and fine and therefore, the punishment being modified to the fine amount of Rs. 50,000/- is not sustainable in the eyes of law and therefore, the Judgment passed by the appellate court calls for interference.
7. The learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the opposite party No. 2 has remained in custody for some period, but he is not aware about the exact period of custody and therefore, it cannot be said that the punishment to the opposite party No. 2 is only confined to fine and not imprisonment. He has submitted that the considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned judgment modifying the sentence does not call for any interference.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner had lodged criminal case against the opposite party No.2. The prosecution story as it appears from paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment reveals that on 21.12.2006 at about 6:30 AM when she was talking to her husband, at that time her elder brother-inlaw, Manmohan Sahu (Opposite Party No.2) and parents-in-law Chamar Sahu and Niras Devi came there and asked the informant as to why she was talking with her husband on which she replied that she is simply talking to her husband. Thereafter, Chamar Sahu caught hold of her hair and dragged her on which she fell down. Manmohan Sahu assaulted her on her legs, face and back with an iron rod. The petitioner tried to save herself and she received injury which also caused bleeding to her. Her father-in-law had also assaulted her with iron rod. Her husband is deaf and dump and parents of the informant
3
are very poor. A female child was born and she was living in her paternal house with her daughter. It was alleged that her father-in-law and elder brother-in-law never wanted any male issue from the wedlock of the informant and her husband for which they were not allowing her to talk to her husband. The elder brother-in-law of the informant directed the informant to live as their servant and did not provide appropriate fooding and clothing to the informant.
9. The case was instituted for offence under Sections 498-A/323 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons and ultimately the accused persons faced the trial. The learned trial court considering the materials on record and recorded findings as under:-
“Now in this case, there is no dispute that the informant is the legally married wife of Kishor Sahu, son of accused Niras Devi and brother of accused Manmohan Sahu. At the same time almost all the prosecution witnesses in their deposition clearly stated that there was quarrel between the informant and accused Manmohan Sahu, his father and his wife and the accused persons, specifically Manmohan Sahu used quarrel with the informant. It is also admitted fact that the husband of the informant who is deaf and dumb and is under the control of Manmohan Sahu. Even he is living with Manmohan Sahu. It is also evident from the case-record that prayer was given by accused Manmohan Sahu that he may be permitted to examine Kishor Sahu as defence witness with the help of the expert. And said prayer was allowed by the court. Even on date fixed expert also came to the court from Ranchi, but on that day Manmohan Sahu by filing a petition informed the court that he will not examine said Kishor Sahu and, in my view, said conduct on the part of accused Manmohan Sahu speaks that due to fear for lightening of truth by said deaf and dumb Kishor Sahu, accused Manmohan Sahu denied to examine his and mis-leaded the court.
All the prosecution witnesses in their deposition further stated that two rooms have been given by the accused persons to the informant and informant and her daughter are living there. On the other hand, in frontal portion of the house accused persons including Kishor Sahu resides with their family. And in my view said fact also indicates that there is restriction of talking by the informant with her husband and for which her husband is not allowing to live with her.
Accused Manmohan Sahu by adducing evidence tried to prove that he along with his family resides at Ranchi, but most of
4
the prosecution witness clearly stated that the said accused also lived at Bhandra. Even Defence Witness No. 1 & 2 never denied the said fact. Testimony of D.W. 1 & 2 does not help the accused to escape from the prosecution case. At the same time defence fails to rebut the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
Lastly in a matrimonial dispute relative of the victim lady are considered at the best witness. And in this case, it is quite natural that brother and other relative of the informant are the best witness. Even Fufa of the accused Manmohan Sahu also supports the prosecution story.”
10. The learned trial court convicted the opposite party No.2 for offence under Sections 498-A/323 of the Indian Penal Code, but acquitted Niras Devi.
11. The records of the case reveal that neither the injury report was exhibited, nor any doctor has been examined. Before the appellate court, it was the specific plea of the Opposite Party No.2 that instead of hearing the appeal on merit, the case be decided by way of modification of sentence and it was submitted that the opposite party No.2 herein was ready and willing to pay Rs.50,000/- and ultimately the appellate court modified the sentence and directed the opposite party No.2 to pay Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the Informant within 15 days and in case of non-payment, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year. The records of the case received from the trial court reveal that the opposite party No.2 had surrendered on 06.03.2007 and he was granted bail on 16.05.2007 when his bail bond was accepted.
12. This Court finds that so far as the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the opposite Party No.2 was sentenced for a period of 3 months and as it is apparent from the record received from the concerned court that the opposite party No. 2 had remained in custody for more than 2 months. This Court finds that it is not a case where the opposite party No. 2 has not remained in custody at all. The core of the dispute appears to be that the petitioner was not permitted to talk or meet with her husband and the fact
5
remains that a child was also born out of wedlock. Further, there is no allegation of demand of any property or dowry from the petitioner.
13. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the modification of sentence passed by the learned appellate court in the instant case in revisional jurisdiction.
14. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is dismissed.
15. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.
16. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Rakesh/-
6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellate court's modification of sentence for offences under Sections 498-A/323 IPC to payment of Rs. 50,000 as compensation called for interference in revision.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Janki Devi
The State of Jharkhand
Manmohan Sahu
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
