The Patna High Court dismissed the criminal revision seeking interference with the conviction and sentence under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone in custody.
Sentence reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner; application dismissed.
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 JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Revision No. 477 of 2014
Arising out of P.S. Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- KATIHAR
======================================================== Pramod Mandal, Son of Chhote Lal Mandal, Resident of VillageBhan Tekhti, Police Station-Madhepura, District-Madhepura. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimal Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. APP.
======================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 16-02-2016
The Petitioner seeks revision of the judgment of conviction dated 25.04.2014 passed by the 1st Ad hoc Additional District & Sessions Judge, Katihar in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2012, by which he has affirmed the judgment dated 27.03.2012 passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in Complaint Case No. 2110 of 2006/Tr. No. 993 of 2012, by which he has convicted the Petitioner under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years and one year respectively.
Having gone through the impugned judgment of conviction, I do not find any reason for interference with the same.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.477 of 2014 dt.16-02-2016
2
However, considering that the Petitioner has remained in custody for about four months, the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
With the aforesaid observations, the application stands dismissed.
(Anjana Prakash, J.)
Vikash/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether revision should be entertained to modify the sentence in a criminal trial involving such offences.
Whether sentence reduction is warranted considering the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pramod Mandal
The State of Bihar
Reena Devi
ANJANA PRAKASH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
