Balbir Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Rev. No. 289 of 2019

Balbir Singh, aged about 52 years, son of Santokh Singh, resident of C/614, Koel Nagar, P.O. Shakti Nagar, P.S. Jhirpani, District Rourkela – 769014 (Orissa) … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party

¶5

¶6

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶7

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Mrs. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, APP ---

¶9

12 /19.04.2024 The learned counsels for the parties are present.

¶10

2. This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment dated 29.01.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – I, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No.69 of 2014 whereby the appeal with respect to the petitioner has been dismissed. However, the conviction of the co-accused-mother-in-law of the complainant has been set aside by the appellate court and the appeal was partly allowed.

¶11

3. The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced vide order dated 04.03.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Jamshedpur in connection with C-1 Case No.753 of 2003 corresponding to G.R. No.800A of 2014 for offence under Sections 323 and 498 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 498A of IPC with fine of Rs. 500 with default sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. No separate sentence has been passed for offence under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code.

¶12

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has confined his argument on the point of sentence.

¶13

5. The learned counsel has submitted that the marriage was solemnized on 20.05.1997 and a daughter was born out of the wedlock on 19.11.1999 and another daughter was born on 02.03.2001. The complaint case was filed on 23.07.2003 and more than 20 years have

¶14

elapsed. He has also submitted that the petitioner had also filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights prior to institution of complaint case and ex-parte decree passed and was exhibited before the learned trial court. He has further submitted that a case for divorce was also filed by the petitioner and the decree of divorce has been passed unopposed by the complainant/opposite party no.2. Rather, the complainant had consented for a decree of divorce passed on 30.06.2011. The petitioner has remarried and to the best of his knowledge the complainant has also remarried.

¶15

6. The learned counsel has further submitted that as per the surrender certificate at the stage of revision the petitioner had surrendered before the learned court on 21.09.2021 and was released on bail by virtue of order dated 03.02.2022. He has further submitted that some time must have been taken to furnish bail bonds, and therefore, the custody of the petitioner in connection with the present case is about 4 months 14 days out of the total punishment of two years. The learned counsel has submitted that the present age of the petitioner is around 57 years.

¶16

7. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has faced the criminal case for around 20 years, and therefore, no useful purpose will be served by sending him to jail again. He submits that decree of divorce having been passed, some sympathetic view may be taken and the sentence be modified to the period the petitioner has already remained in judicial custody. He submits that appropriate order for enhancement of fine may be passed by this Court.

¶17

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by both the courts and the allegation against the petitioner was duly proved and there is no scope for reappreciation of any materials or evidence, and therefore the conviction of the petitioner does not call for any interference.

¶18

9. So far as the modification of sentence is concerned, the learned counsel submits that it is for the court to take a call on such modification. He has submitted that he is not aware about the actual

¶19

2

¶20

custody of the petitioner. However, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had surrendered before the learned court on 21.09.2021 and was directed to be released on bail on 03.02.2022.

¶21

10. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, this Court finds that as per the complainant, the marriage was solemnized on 20.05.1997, and the complainant went to her matrimonial house, and out of the wedlock, two children were born. It was alleged that during marriage, household articles were given and soon after the marriage, the complainant was asked to change the materials given during marriage, as it was alleged to be substandard. When the complainant showed her inability to do so, she was tortured physically and mentally. It was also alleged that on account of birth of female child, the situation aggravated, and further demand of Rs. 1 lakh cash was made, and the complainant was assaulted on account of non-payment of such amount. It was also alleged that while she was on her family way, on 30.08.2000, she was assaulted and driven out from the house, asking her to bring Rs. 1 lakh cash from her father's house. On 02.03.2001, she was blessed with another girl child. After hearing this, the petitioner told her that it was not his baby and threatened the complainant not to come to her matrimonial house.

¶22

11. It further appears that there was some meeting in Gurudwara and it was agreed that the petitioner would arrange for a separate house for the complainant, so that both of them could lead a peaceful life, but in spite of such assurance, the petitioner did not do the needful and used to assault the complainant in a drunken state at her parents' house, and ultimately the complainant case was filed on 23.07.2003.

¶23

12. At the stage of trial, altogether three witnesses were examined from the side of the complainant and the complainant was examined as CW 2, CW1 was her brother. A number of documents were exhibited. The defence also produced two witnesses, DW1 and DW2, and had also produced many exhibits. The DWs tried to prove that they had taken ample care of the complainant during her pregnancy,

¶24

3

¶25

and at the time of birth of the child all the expenses were borne by them. The witnesses were duly cross-examined by both the parties.

¶26

13. This Court also finds that the original judgment and decree of divorce dated 30.06.2011; one original certified copy of order sheet dated 05.01.2012 of Miscellaneous Case No.2086 of 2004 and the compromise petition with the order of the learned court were also exhibited before the learned court. The decree passed in the case of restitution of conjugal rights has also been exhibited before the learned court.

¶27

14. The learned trial court scrutinised the materials on record and ultimately convicted the three accused persons for offence under Sections 498A, 323 of IPC. At the stage of appeal, the father-in-law of the complainant had expired and the appeal was pursued by the mother-in-law, and the present petitioner (the husband). The appellate court has also scrutinized all the materials on record and acquitted the mother-in-law, but so far as the petitioner is concerned, the judgment of conviction as well as sentence has been upheld.

¶28

15. In view of the concurrent findings with regard to the conviction of the petitioner by both the learned courts, there being no scope for re-appreciation of evidences and coming to a different finding in revisional jurisdiction , this Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction of the petitioner .

¶29

16. This Court finds that the complaint case was lodged as back as in the year 2003 and more than 20 years has elapsed and the parties have also separated themselves through divorce. As per the records, the present offence is the first offence of the petitioner. The petitioner has already remained in custody for a period of more than four months and has faced the rigors of trial for a very long time.

¶30

17. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that ends of justice would be served if the sentence of the petitioner is modified to some extent.

¶31

18. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is confined to the period already undergone in custody, with an enhanced fine amount of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner before the learned trial

¶32

4

¶33

Saurav

¶34

court within a period of two months from today. In case, the amount is not deposited within the stipulated time, the bail bonds furnished by the petitioner will be cancelled by the learned trial court and the petitioner shall serve the sentence passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court.

¶35

19. The fine amount is directed to be remitted to the victim, i.e., the complainant, upon due identification.

¶36

20. This criminal revision application is accordingly disposed of.

¶37

21. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed.

¶38

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶39

5

Balbir Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balbir Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Kumar Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ram Prasad Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Madhuri Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Deptt School Education and Literacy Primary Education

Ramesh Melgandi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kusheshwar Prasad Alias Kusheshwar Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Sikandar Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand