Jharkhand High Court
Deojeet Biswas @ Debjit Biswas Son ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 374 of 2013
With
I.A. No. 1067 of 2021
Deojeet Biswas @ Debjit Biswas son of Late Dibyendu Biswas,
resident of 3/2 Mourya Apartment, Radhika Nagar, P.O. & P.S.-
Telco, District- East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur
... ... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Chaitali Biswas W/o Debjit Biswas, Resident of A 3/18, Awas
Regency, P.O.- Kadma, P.S.- Kadma, District- East Singhbhum
... ... ... Opp. Parties
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, A.P.P.
For the Opp. Party No.2 : Ms. Moushmi Chatterjee, Advocate
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
21/24.08.2021
1. Heard Mr. Srijit Choudhary, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Ms. Moushmi Chatterjee, the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2.
3. Heard Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, the learned A.P.P. appearing
on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.
4. This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment
dated 22.03.2013 passed by the learned Principal Sessions
Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No.
137 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate
court confirmed the judgment of conviction and the order of
sentence dated 14.07.2011 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in G.R. Case No. 1383 of
2008 / T.R. No. 1921/2011 (arising out of Kadma P.S. Case No.
86/2008) and dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the
petitioner.
5. The learned trial court had convicted the petitioner under
Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act and had sentenced him to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for 03 Years with fine of Rs.1,000/-
and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for 15 days.
Arguments on behalf of the petitioner
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
during pendency of the present criminal revision application,
both the parties entered into compromise and finally, they
decided to separate through mutual consent and accordingly, a
joint compromise petition being I.A. No. 1067 of 2021 has been
filed before this Court in which the terms and conditions of the
settlement arrived at between the parties for the purposes of
divorce has been brought on record. The terms and conditions
of the settlement are recorded as under:
"(i) That Opposite Party No. 2 shall withdraw her complaint /
allegations as against the petitioner based on which the present
Criminal Revision has arisen as soon as the decree for Divorce by
mutual consent is granted by the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Jamshedpur in Matrimonial Suit i.e. Original Suit No. 895/2019.
(ii) That both the parties shall be free to lead their respective lives in
their own way and the parties shall not interfere in each other's
matter.
(iii) That none of the parties shall raise any other dispute against
each other arising from the same cause of action.
7. It has also been stated at para 8 of the joint compromise
petition that this joint compromise petition may be accepted
and the instant Criminal Revision may be allowed and the
petitioner may be acquitted from all the charges.
8. Learned counsel further submitted that in view of the
aforesaid facts, the judgment of conviction and the order of
sentence may be set aside as the parties have already settled
down the matter and have already separated.
Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party
No.2 supported the fact that the petitioner and the Opposite
Party No.2 have settled their disputes and have entered into
compromise under the terms and conditions mentioned in I.A.
No. 1067/2021 and the Opposite Party No.2 has no objection to
the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. She also submits
that the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence may
be set aside as the parties have already settled down the matter
and have already separated.
Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State
10. Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, the learned A.P.P. appearing on
behalf of the State submitted that the offences under Section
498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act are non-compoundable in nature and in such
circumstances, the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Manohar Singh -vs- State of Madhya
Pradesh and Anr. reported in (2014) 13 SCC 75 is a binding
precedent wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court is of the view
that once conviction is recorded under the non-compoundable
offences, the order of sentence cannot be quashed, but the
sentence of the accused can be reduced to the sentence already
undergone. He further submitted that if the parties have
settled their disputes mutually, the sentence of the petitioner
under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act may be modified to the period
already undergone by him and the fine amount may also be
deleted, but so far as the conviction is concerned, concurrent
findings have been recorded by the learned courts below
which do not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Findings of this Court
11. On the basis of the written report of the informant, the case
was registered as Kadma P.S. Case No. 86/2008 dated
25.06.2008 under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After completion of
investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance of
the offence was taken and after appearance of the accused
persons, charges under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were
framed against the petitioner and Dibyendu Biswas and Dipa
Biswas which were read over and explained to them in Hindi
to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
12. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether six
witnesses to prove its case. P.W.-1 Samir Bhushan Dev is the
father of the informant, P.W.-2 Dipali Dey is the mother of the
informant, P.W.-3 Chaitali Dey is the informant herself, P.W.-4
Chandan Dey is uncle of informant, P.W.-5 Timir Varan Dey is
another uncle of informant and P.W.-6 Jai Shankar Bhagat is
the investigating officer of the case. The prosecution exhibited
some documentary evidences including the signature of the
informant on the written report as Exhibit-1. After closure of
prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused persons
were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they
claimed false implication and innocence.
13. The learned trial court considered the materials on record and
recorded its findings that all the prosecution witnesses have
supported the allegation that the informant is staying away
from her matrimonial house alongwith her son since long due
to torture committed by the petitioner and they have also
supported the allegation that the petitioner had taken away the
son of the informant without informing her and the informant
has also supported the allegation of demand of dowry of
Rs.30,000/- from her. The learned trial court convicted the
petitioner under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and had sentenced
him as stated above. However, the learned trial court acquitted
the co-accused namely, Dibyendu Biswas and Dipa Biswas
from the charges under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
14. The learned appellate court also considered the materials on
record and recorded that P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-5 in their
evidence have fully supported the contentions of P.W.-3. P.W.-
6 Investigating Officer has supported the prosecution case and
the evidences of all these witnesses are corroborative to each
other. The learned appellate court confirmed the judgment of
conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned
trial court and dismissed the criminal appeal.
15. This Court finds that both the learned courts below have
carefully scrutinized the evidences and materials available on
record and have recorded concurrent findings and have
convicted the petitioner for the offences under Section 498(A)
of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act which are certainly non-compoundable.
Further, the learned counsels for the parties have not advanced
any arguments on the merits of the case.
16. This Court further finds that the petitioner had remained in
custody for some days in relation to the present case during
pendency of the present criminal revision.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Singh -vs-
State of Madhya Pradesh and Another reported in 2014 (13)
SCC 75 has dealt with the effect of compromise between the
parties after recording conviction under the non-
compoundable offences i.e. Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and has
observed in Para-8 as under:
"8. ................................................................
Even though the appellant and the Respondent 2 wife have
arrived at a compromise, the order of conviction cannot be
quashed on that ground, because the offences involved are non-
compoundable. However, in such a situation, if the court feels
that the parties have a real desire to bury the hatchet, in the
interest of peace, it can reduce the sentence of the accused to
the sentence already undergone. Section 498-A does not
prescribe any minimum punishment. Section 4 of the Dowry
Act prescribes minimum punishment of six months, but
proviso thereto states that the court may, for adequate or
special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a
sentence of imprisonment for a term which may be less than
six months. Therefore, sentence of the appellant can be reduced
to sentence already undergone by him."
18. This Court finds that during pendency of the present criminal
revision petition, the petitioner and the Informant-Opposite
Party No.2 have mutually settled their disputes and have
entered into a compromise and thereafter, both have also filed
a Joint Compromise Petition vide I.A. No. 1067 of 2021 stating
therein the terms and conditions of the settlement arrived at
between them. The opposite party no. 2 has also stated that the
conviction and sentence of the petitioner be set-aside on
account of compromise.
19. Accordingly, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Singh (supra) and
considering the compromise entered into between the
petitioner and the Informant (opposite party no.2) , this Court
is not inclined to interfere with the conviction of the petitioner
under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act in absence of any perversity or
material irregularity in the impugned judgement of conviction
of the petitioner , which is hereby upheld.
So far as the sentence is concerned, the same is hereby
modified and reduced to the period already undergone by the
petitioner in judicial custody and the fine amount of Rs.1000/-
imposed by the learned court below is directed to be deposited
by the petitioner before the learned court below within a
period of two months from the date of communication of this
order to the learned court below in order to meet the ends of
justice, so that both the parties may live peacefully.
20. Accordingly, with the aforesaid findings and observations, the
present criminal revision petition is hereby disposed of.
21. I.A. No. 1067 of 2021 also stands disposed of.
22. The petitioner will be discharged from the liability under the
bail bond furnished by him upon deposit of the fine amount.
23. Office is directed to send back the lower court records to the
court concerned.
24. Let a copy of this Judgment be communicated to the court
concerned through "FAX/E-mail".
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit/
