Chattisgarh High Court
Kailash Mongari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 April, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 337 of 2010
Kailash Mongari, S/o Jeeto Mongari, aged about 36 years, R/o
Village Akashkhar, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund
(C.G.)
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police of
Police Station Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate.
For State/Respondent : Mr. Somya Rai, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
Judgment on Board
12.04.2022
1. This revision has been preferred by the applicant against the
judgment dated 09.07.2010 passed by learned 1st Additional
Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) in
Criminal Appeal No. 01/2010 arising out of judgment dated
17.12.2009, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) (hereinafter
referred to as 'JMFC'), in Criminal Case No. 755/2009.
2. According to the case of prosecution, the applicant is the
husband of victim/complainant Kavita. Prior to two years from
lodging the FIR, their marriage was solemnized. It is alleged
that after some time of their marriage, the applicant and his
family members were treated cruelty with the complainant on
account of demand of dowry. They demanded Rs. 50,000/-
and a motorcycle from the complainant as dowry. It is further
alleged that when parents of the complainant and her grand
maternal father reached the house of the applicant, at that
time also, she was assaulted by the applicant and his family
members. Thereafter, they have taken her with them. Later
on, it was came into their knowledge that the applicant is
already married with some other lady. On the basis of report
made by the complainant, offence has been registered
against the applicant.
3. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet has been
filed before the learned JMFC. Learned JMFC vide judgment
dated 17.12.2009, convicted the applicant/accused for the
offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and
sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph one of this
judgment. Against the said judgment of learned JMFC, a
criminal appeal has been preferred by the applicant/accused.
Vide impugned judgment dated 09.07.2010, the Appellate
Court affirmed the conviction for the offence punishable under
Section 498-A of the IPC and also affirmed the sentence and
the fine amount. Hence, this revision.
4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant
submits that he does not want to press this revision on merits
and confines his argument to the sentence part only. He
further submits that the applicant has already undergone
about 9 days in jail. He has no criminal antecedents and has
facing the lis since 2009 i.e. for about 13 years. Therefore, it
is prayed that the jail sentence awarded to him may be
reduced to the period already undergone by him.
5. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision
and supported the impugned judgment.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties and perused the record available with utmost
circumspection.
7. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly considering that the applicant is facing the lis
since 2009 and there is no criminal antecedents against him. I
am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while
upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicant, the jail
sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already
undergone by him.
8. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of
the applicant under Section 498-A of the IPC is affirmed and
against the conviction he is sentenced to the period already
undergone by him. The fine sentence for the above offence is
also affirmed.
9. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of
this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge
Shubham
