Chattisgarh High Court
Santosh Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 February, 2025
1
NAFR
Digitally HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
signed by
ANJANI
KUMAR
ALLENA
Date:
CRR No. 262 of 2016
2025.02.13
14:04:31
+0530
Santosh Singh S/o Shri Bhuneshwar Singh Aged About 25 Years Caste Gond, R/o
Vill. Ghuyee, Police Station - Ramkola, Tahsil Pratappur, Civil And Rev. District
Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner/Applicant/Husband
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ramkola, Distt. Surajpur
Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent/Non-applicant
For Petitioner : Shri Neeraj Mehta, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, P.L.
(HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)
Order on Board
12/02/2025
1. The applicant has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 11.03.2016 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pratappur, Dist. Surajpur C.G. in Criminal
Appeal No.07/2016, affirming the judgment dated 11.01.2016 passed in Criminal
Case No.346/2012 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pratappur, Dist.Surajpur
C.G., whereby the applicant was convicted under Section 498-A of Indian Penal
Code (for short, 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one
year and fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional
rigorous imprisonment for one month, while acquitting the other co-accused persons
of the said charge.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the marriage between the applicant
and complainant Umeshwari was solemnized on 04.05.2009 and during course of
marriage, the applicant demanded motorcycle and after some time of marriage,
applicant used to harass and torture her physically and mentally for not fulfilling his
demand. The other co-accused persons were also taunting the complainant for
motorcycle and complainant's parents made them understand but they keep raising
their demand and ultimately being fed up with the persistent ill-treatment made by
the applicant and other co-accused persons, she lodged a written report at police
station Jainagar. On the basis of written report, FIR (Ex.P-1) has been lodged
against the applicant and other co-accused persons under Section 498-A/34 of IPC.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. The applicant and
other co-accused persons abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty.
4. Learned court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence,
convicted and sentenced the applicant and other co-accused persons as mentioned
in paragraph 1 of this judgment. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant
and other co-accused persons in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide
judgment dated 11.03.2016, dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment of the
JMFC while acquitting the other co-accused persons of the said charge. Hence, this
revision.
5. Learned counsel appearing for 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 applicant remained in jail for 26 days, i.e., from 11.03.2016
to 05.04.2016, he has no criminal antecedents and is facing the lis since November
2012 i.e. for more than 12 years. He also submits that at the time of incident, the
applicant was young boy and that, the petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act has been allowed and a decree of divorce has been passed in favour
of the applicant. He also submits that during trial the applicant was on bail and he
never misused the liberty granted to him during bail. Therefore, it is prayed by
counsel for the applicant that the jail sentence awarded to applicant may be reduced
to the period already undergone by him.
6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision and supported
the impugned judgment.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused
the record.
8. Considering the statement of the complainant- Umeshwari (PW-1) i.e. wife of
applicant supported by the statements of PW-2 Rishabh Dev Singh and P.W.3
Kanthi Singh and other evidence and material available on record, this Court is of
the opinion that the finding recorded by the Court of JMFC Court as well as by the
Appellate Court, being based on the evidence available on record, is a correct
finding. Therefore, I hereby affirm the said finding of conviction of applicant.
9. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and further considering the fact that the applicant remained in jail for 26 days,
has no criminal antecedents and is facing the lis since November, 2012 i.e. for more
than 12 years and further that, marriage between the applicant and the complainant
has been dissolved by way of decree of divorce I am of the view that the ends of
justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon applicant, the
jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
However, the fine amount with default sentence imposed by the Court of JMFC as
well as Appellate Court for the aforesaid offence shall remain intact.
10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of applicant
under the aforementioned Section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period
already undergone by them.
11. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall
remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section
437-A of Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal)
JUDGE
Anjani
