Manohar S/O Venkuji Alone (In ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4866 Bom

                                                                                   
    Revn.No.139/2016                               1    




                                                           
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                            CRIMINAL REVISION NO.139 OF 2016




                                                          
    Applicant                :      Manohar s/o Venkuji Alone,
                                    Aged about 41 years, 
                                    Occupation : Medical Practitioner, 




                                             
                                    R/o. Saknur, P.S. Lathi, 
                                    At Present R/o Patan, Tah. Jiwati, 
                               ig   District Chandrapur.

                                    -- Versus --
                             
    Non-Applicant            :      State of Maharashtra, 
                                    Through Police Station Officer, 
                                    Police Station Patan, Tah. Jiwati,
                                    District Chandrapur.
      


                       =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                          Shri A.D. Hazare, Advocate for the Applicant
   



                        Shri S.D. Sirpurkar, A.P.P. for the Non-Applicant
                       =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

                              C ORAM :  S. B. SHUKRE, J.

                             DATE     :  24
                                               AUGUST, 2016.
                                            th




    ORAL JUDGMENT :- 

Heard. Issue notice for final disposal to the non-applicant. The

learned A.P.P. waives notice on behalf of the non-applicant.

02] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with

consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

03] Although the learned Counsel for the revision applicant has

submitted that the impugned judgment is illegal and perverse, rightly

submitted by the learned A.P.P., upon perusal of the evidence of the

prosecutrix, a copy of which has been made available, I do not think it to be

so. The prosecutrix has come up with a specific case of her harassment,

mental and physical that she was subjected to by the non-applicant and

considering the nature of cross-examination, I find that both the Courts below

have rightly recorded the concurrent finding of the applicant being guilty of

the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

04] The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the

applicant is in jail since 22 nd August, 2016 and that now the prosecutrix,

who is his wife, has also filed a pursis on record before the trial Court

that now she would not be willing to prosecute this case any further

owning to her settlement with this applicant. This pursis is at Exh.26, on the

record of the trial Court. So he submits, whatsoever detention this applicant

has already undergone should suffice the interest of justice. He also submits

that there was another pursis [Exh.27] filed for grant of permission to

compound the offences. He, however, submits that while the offence

punishable under Section 506 was compounded, the offence under Section

498-A could not be. However, it appears that the matter of compounding of

the offence was not pressed further and, therefore, when the appeal filed

against the judgment and order of the trial Court was decided by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Chandrapur, the learned Sessions Judge

reduced the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded for an offence

under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code to one month. He submits that

in these circumstances, the applicant deserves to be shown leniency.

05] Having regard to the circumstances pointed out by the learned

Counsel for the applicant, I am of the view that the interests of justice would

be served, if the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded for an offence

punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is reduced to the

period of detention already undergone by him. Accordingly, the following

order is passed.

i. The revision is partly allowed and the impugned order dated

22/08/2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.4,

Chandrapur to the extent of imposing sentence of imprisonment for

one month for an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the

Indian Penal Code to the applicant is hereby substituted by the

order directing that now the applicant shall undergo sentence of

imprisonment for an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the

Indian Penal Code for a term, which is equivalent to the period of

detention already undergone by him till date.

ii. As the fine amount has already been paid, the applicant be set at

liberty forthwith.

iii. Out of the fine amount, Rs.4,000/-, the complainant-prosecutrix be

paid compensation as directed by trial Court in terms of Section

357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

iv. Criminal revision is disposed of in aforesaid terms.

v. Rule is made absolute in above terms.

vi. Hamdast is granted.

JUDGE

*sdw

C E R T I F I C A T E

I certify that this judgment uploaded is a true and

correct copy of the original signed judgment.

Uploaded by: S.D. Waghmare Uploaded on : 30/08/2016

P.A. to the Hon'ble Judge.