The single-judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that as per Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding on all the Courts within the territory of India and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court applies to all pending proceedings.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that Prayag Mistry was married to Sushma Devi fifteen years ago and had five children also. He was working his livelihood outside and used to give earnings to his wife. Thereafter, when he returned, he started noticing changes in his wife's behavior toward his neighbor Binod Oraon. Binod Oraon with the intention to marry persuaded her wife and fled away with her along with their four children. Furthermore, the case was registered under Sections 366 and 497 of the Indian Penal Code against Binod Oraon. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 497 of the IPC and the present appeal is filed in order to challenge the judgment of the trial court.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner contended that the Supreme Court declared Section 497 unconstitutional in the judgment titled Joseph Shine -versus- Union of India. The Petitioner also relied upon the judgment titled Rupesh Versus Shri Charandas &Another.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that section 497 of the Indian Penal Code was declared unconstitutional by the Hon'ble Supreme Court because it violates Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. Section 198(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which outlines the process for prosecution under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code, was also ruled to be unconstitutional, but only to the extent that it relates to the offense of adultery under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court noted that as per Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding on all the Courts within the territory of India and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court applies to all pending proceedings.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 497 of the IPC passed by the learned Court below is not sustainable.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the appeal.
Case title: Binod Oraon @ Vinod Oraon Vs The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 236 of 2012
Advocates for the Appellant: Ms. Supriya Dayal, Advocate Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Ms. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws,com
Picture Source :