Ismail Sk vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 1672 Jhar

                                           1




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                              Cr. Revision No. 977 of 2012

                     Ismail Sk.                              ...   ...   Petitioner
                                         Versus
                     The State of Jharkhand          ...       ...       Opp. Party
                                         ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Advocate

---

Through: Video Conferencing

10/07.04.2021

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma is present.

2. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State Mr. Shekhar Sinha is also present.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned judgments submits that the impugned judgments are perverse in view of the fact that the learned courts below have not taken into consideration that the informant was carrying pregnancy of four months at the time of marriage. The learned counsel also submits that apparently that was the reason for the case filed against the petitioner who has been convicted in an enquiry conducted by Juvenile Justice Board. He further submits that the impugned judgments are perverse and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was under detention for a period from 26.11.2014 to 27.02.2015 during the pendency of the present revision petition and the petitioner was 16 to 17 years of age on the date of occurrence and was 19 years old on the date of judgment passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party- State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer and submits that

there are concurrent findings regarding assault as well as demand of Rs. 20,000/- from the father of the informant. He further submits that even if the complainant was four months pregnant, the same by itself cannot be a reason to interfere in the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence. The learned counsel further submits that the manner, in which, the alleged offence has been committed, no interference in the sentence is called for, in as much as, the learned Juvenile Justice Board has passed punishment of only one year for offence under Sections 498-A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. Arguments concluded.

7. Order is reserved.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul