Jharkhand High Court
Mahboob Alam vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 August, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 542 of 2012
Mahboob Alam ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Taibun Khatoon ... ... Opp. Parties
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Ms. Rashmi Kumar, Advocate
Through Video Conferencing
10/19.08.2021
1. Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the opposite party-State.
3. Heard Ms. Rashmi Kumar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the opposite party No. 2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the
impugned judgments has submitted that the case has been
instituted after inordinate delay. He submits that the case was
instituted in the year 2003 and at that point of time it was
stated that marriage between the petitioner and opposite party
No. 2 had taken place 14 years ago. He further submits that
one other witness has stated that the marriage had taken place
20 years ago. Learned counsel further submits that there is no
independent witness in the present case and the delay is
absolutely unexplained. Learned counsel further submits that
the learned court below has not considered the fact that there
was separation between the petitioner and the opposite party
No. 2 and the document was also prepared on 30.03.2004 and
the dispute between the parties had settled. He submits that
the said document which was produced by the defence has not
been considered by the learned court below. Considering the
facts and circumstances of this case the conviction of the
petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian
Penal Code cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. He also
submits that the complainant had failed to prove the case
against the petitioner for the offence under Section ¾ of the
Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, the petitioner was
acquitted from the said charges and was only convicted under
Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Without prejudice to
the aforesaid submission, learned counsel has also submitted
that the petitioner has remained in custody during the
pendency of this case from 19.02.2013 to 18.04.2013 and the
petitioner is also ready to give victim compensation to the
opposite party No. 2 as may be fixed by this court. Learned
counsel has also submitted that considering the fact that the
complaint case was filed in the year 2003 and the present case
is the first offence of the petitioner, the sentence may be
modified.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-
State on the other hand has opposed the prayer and advanced
his argument that there was compromise between the parties
that the complainant was taken back to the matrimonial house
and was again thrown out from the matrimonial house within
a period of 20 days. He submits that the delay in filing the
complaint case is well explained. Learned counsel has also
submitted that on earlier occasion between the parties and as
long as the said case was pending, the petitioner used to keep
the opposite party No. 2, but the moment the case was
compromised, the opposite party No. 2. was thrown out within
a period of 20 days thereafter she filed the present case.
Learned counsel has also submits that the petitioner has
performed second marriage though it is not in dispute that the
petitioner and the opposite party No. 2 are governed by
Muslim law. Learned counsel has also submitted that there are
concurrent finding recorded by the learned courts below
which does not call for interference in revisional jurisdiction.
So far as modification of sentence is concerned he submits that
it is for the court to pass appropriate order. He also submits
that victim compensation should also be given to the opposite
party No. 2.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No.
2 also supports the argument advanced by the State.
7. Arguments have been concluded.
8. Post this case for judgment on 06.09.2021.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit/
