Binod Ram And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 574 of 2015

------

Sanjay Ram, Son of Ganga Mochi, Resident of Village and P.O. – Bankhata, Narsinghpur, Pathra, P.S. – Chainpur, District – Palamau, Jharkhand. .... …. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Nirmala Devi, Wife of Shri Ajay Ram, resident of Village – Bansehar, P.O. and P.S. – Panki, District – Palamau, Jharkhand.

¶7

.... .... Opp. Parties

¶8

WITH

¶9

Cr. Revision No. 545 of 2016

¶10

------

¶11

Binod Ram, Son of Ganga Mochi.

¶12

Rama Devi @ Rampati Devi, Wife of Binod Ram. Both are resident of Village – Bankheta, P.O. and P.S. – Chainpur, District – Palamau, Jharkhand.

¶13

.... …. Petitioners

¶14

Versus

¶15

The State of Jharkhand

¶16

Nirmala Devi, Wife of Shri Ajay Ram, Daughter of Lalan, resident of Village – Ashehar, P.O. and P.S. – Panki, District – Palamau, Jharkhand.

¶17

.... .... Opp. Parties

¶18

------

¶19

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶20

-----For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate [In both cases] For the State : Mrs. Mahua Palit, A.P.P. [In Cr. Revision No. 574/2015] : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P. [In Cr. Revision No. 545/2016] For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate. [In both cases]

¶21

------

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Order No. 22/Dated : 05.07.2024

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

Page 1 of 6

¶26

2. Both the criminal revisions are directed against the judgment dated 19.12.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Palamau in Cr. Appeal No. 45 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the appellate court has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners and thereby affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.02.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Daltonganj in Complaint Case No. 389 of 2006 corresponding to T.R. No. 796 of 2013, whereby the trial court has held the petitioners guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of one year and six months and fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation under Section 498(A) of the I.P.C. and also sentenced for six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act with default stipulation and all the sentences shall run concurrently.

¶27

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the complainant got married with Ajay Ram on 09.05.2003 according to Hindu rites and rituals and she went to her Sasural and she returned back to her parental house and when she went to Sasural again, the accused persons started demanding Hero

¶28

Page 2 of 6

¶29

Honda Motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/- cash for starting a business. When the demand was not made, the accused persons started abusing and physically torturing the complainant and also threatened her, if the demand is not made, they will oust her from the home and also her husband will solemnize second marriage with another girl. In the meanwhile, complainant gave birth to one baby son and ultimately on 14.05.2006, all the accused persons assaulted her and after taking her golden ear ring, silver chain and Rs. 1,000/- ousted her from the matrimonial home. Hence, the complaint was filed.

¶30

4. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, Complaint Case bearing C-389/06 has been instituted, in which complainant has been examined on S.A. and on the basis of materials available on record, prima facie case under Section 323, 498(A), 379 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been made out against the eight accused persons and summons were issued to the accused persons. It is relevant to state that out of eight accused persons, two accused namely, Anita Devi and Ganga Mochi had died and proceeding against them was extinguished vide order dated 15.07.2008 and 18.09.2010. Thereafter on 24.03.2011 charges for the aforesaid sections framed, to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶31

Page 3 of 6

¶32

5. After conclusion of trial, the accused persons were held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A) of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused persons and sentenced them as aforesaid.

¶33

6. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the learned trial court, the accused persons preferred Cr. Appeal No. 45 of 2003 and vide judgment dated 19.12.2014, the appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the learned trial court, which has been assailed in this revision. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Binod Ram (petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 574/2015) is the brother-in-law; Binod Ram (petitioner no. 1 in Cr. Revision No. 545/2016) is the brother-in-law and Rama Devi @ Rampati Devi (petitioner no. 2 in Cr. Revision No. 545/2016) is the gotni of the complainant / opposite party no. 2. The husband of the victim (complainant) namely, Ajay Ram has also filed Cr. Revision No. 818 of 2015, which was disposed of vide order dated 24.02.2016 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, whereby the husband along with co-accused were directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant as compensation and were directed to release on furnishing Probation Bond under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders

¶34

Page 4 of 6

¶35

Act, 1958 and the case of the petitioners stand on better footing. There is general and omnibus allegation leveled against all the accused persons for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. I.A. No. 5450 of 2024 has also been filed in this case brining on record the compromise petition between the parties. The petitioners have remained in custody for about 10½ months out of total awarded sentence of imprisonment of 1½ years and have been sufficiently punished. Hence, petitioners may also be released by reducing their sentence to the extent of sentence / imprisonment already undergone.

¶36

8. Learned APP appearing for the State has no serious objection to the reduction of the sentence in this case in the particular facts and circumstances of the case.

¶37

9. In view of the aforesaid change in circumstances and also in view of the fact that the petitioners have sustained substantial sentence of imprisonment out of the total awarded substantive sentence of imprisonment by the concerned trial court and husband has been granted benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and husband and wife are residing together and also in view of the compromise between the parties, the further imprisonment of petitioners shall serve no useful purpose.

¶38

Page 5 of 6

¶39

10. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is reduced to the imprisonment already undergone and this revision is disposed of.

¶40

11. Petitioners are in custody, hence, they are directed to release forthwith, if not required in any other case.

¶41

12. I.A. No. 5450 of 2024 also stands disposed of.

¶42

13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX at once.

¶43

14. Office is further directed to send the trial court record to the court concerned.

¶44

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶45

Sunil/-NAFR