Disposed

Binod Rawani v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC19 Sept 2024Cr.Rev./240/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner convicted under Section 498-A IPC in 2006, affirmed on appeal, challenged in revision limited to sentence. Citing over 34 years elapsed since the 1990 FIR and no prior conviction, the court reduced the sentence to six months' rigorous imprisonment with Rs. one lakh fine payable to the victim wife.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to six months RI plus Rs. 1 lakh fine payable to victim within two months; default revives original sentence.

Binod Rawani Vs the State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH CO URT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 240 of 2015

¶3

Binod Rawani, son of Late Ram Sunder Rawani, Resident of Dhobani, P.O. and P.S. Putki, District Dhanbad,

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --For the Petitioner : Mr. Amrit Anunay, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, APP ---

¶7

16 /19.09.2024 Counsel for the parties are present.

¶8

2. This criminal revision has been filed against the order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2006 by the Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, whereby the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court was affirmed by the Appellate Court but the learned Appellate Court has acquitted the mother of the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.

¶9

3. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 17.06.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with G.R. Case No. 1230/1990 arising out of Putki P.S. Case No. 61/1990 only under Section 498A of IPC and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs. 500 with default sentence.

¶10

4. The learned counsel for the parties have referred to the order dated 13.05.2015 wherein it has been recorded that the revision application will be heard on the limited question of sentence only and not on merit.

¶11

5. Accordingly, the learned counsels have advanced their arguments on the limited point of sentence.

¶12

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner while advancing his argument on the point of sentence has submitted that the allegation under section 494 of IPC was not proved and there was demand of Rs. 10,000/- coupled with torture. There was no injury report so far as the victim is concerned. The marriage was solemnized in the year 1985 and the victim wife was thrown out of the matrimonial home in the

¶13

year 1987 and she gave birth to a child in her parental house in the year 1988. She went back to her matrimonial home but she was tortured and driven away from her matrimonial home and was residing with her father (informant). Later on the informant, father of the complainant, came to know that the petitioner had re-married during the life time of his daughter. Consequently, the case was filed. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has faced the criminal case since 1990 and more than 34 years has elapsed since then. He submits that considering this aspect of the matter the sentence be modified.

¶14

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite partyState has submitted that in case the sentence is modified then some compensation is directed to be paid by the petitioner to the victim wife.

¶15

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties this court finds that the case was instituted on the basis of FIR filed by the father-inlaw of the petitioner against the petitioner and his mother. The charges were framed for the offence under Section 498-A and Section 494 of IPC. The impugned judgements reveal that there was a demand of Rs. 10,000/- for which the victim was driven out of her matrimonial house and there was also an allegation that the petitioner had remarried. This court finds that the learned Trial Court ultimately acquitted the mother of the petitioner and convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and acquitted the petitioner for the offence under Section 494 IPC and sentenced accordingly. The Appellate Court has also confirmed the judgment and sentence.

¶16

9. This court finds that the petitioner has faced the criminal case for a long time; the case was instituted in 1990 and the petitioner was ultimately sentenced on 17.06.2006 after expiry of about 16 years from the date of FIR and as of now more than 34 years has elapsed from the date of the FIR. As per the judgement of the learned trial court no previous conviction of the petitioner was recorded.

¶17

10. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case this court is of the view that the sentence is petitioner be reduced

¶18

¶19

to some extent and some fine be imposed to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. One lakh to be deposited by the petitioner before the learned Court within a period of two months from the date of communication of this judgement to the learned trial court. In case the petitioner does not deposit the fine amount within the time stipulated, the petitioner would serve the remaining sentence as awarded by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court.

¶20

11. The fine amount so deposited by the petitioner is directed to be remitted to the victim wife of the petitioner after due identification.

¶21

12. This revision is disposed of with the aforesaid modification of sentence.

¶22

13. Bail Bond Furnished by the petitioner is cancelled.

¶23

14. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.

¶24

15. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX.

¶25

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶26

Binit

¶27

Binod Rawani v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binod Rawani 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

Pradeep Kumar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jogendra Kumar Dangi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Brajesh Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Ashok Chandra Bhakat Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Janki Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kalyan Kumar Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand