Jharkhand High Court
Prakash Saw vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 171 of 2014
With
I.A No. 488 of 2021
Prakash Saw, Son of Late Mahabir Saw, Resident of Village -
Gomia, Police Station -Gomia, P.O. Gomia, District - Bokaro
... ... Petitioner
---Versus---
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Bijeta Devi, D/o Ram Prasad Saw, Vill. Jamtara, P.S. Dumri,
Distt. Giridih ... ... Opp. Parties
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
Through: Video Conferencing
14/08.07.2021
1. Heard Mr. Anupam Anand, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.
3. Heard Mr. Satish Kumar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of opposite party No.-2.
4. This criminal revision application has been filed against
the judgement dated 12.02.2014 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat in Cr. Appeal
No. 04/2006, whereby the appellate court has confirmed the
judgment dated 14.12.2005 passed by the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in G.R. No. 125/1996
corresponding to T.R. No. 40/2005. The petitioner has been
convicted for offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal
Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
a period of two years.
5. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner as
well as the learned counsel for the opposite party No.-2 submits
that they have filed a joint compromise petition being I.A No.
488 of 2021 pursuant to mediation between the petitioner and
opposite party no. 2 that had taken place at JHALSA
(Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority) and as per the joint
compromise petition, they have amicably settled their dispute
and an amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- has also been paid to the
opposite party No.-2 which forms a part of the compromise. He
submits that he would be satisfied if the sentence of the
petitioner is modified to the period of custody already
undergone by the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the opposite party No.-2 has
specifically submitted that the entire amount, as per the joint
compromise petition, has been received by the opposite party
No.-2. He has also submitted that in view of the joint
compromise petition filed in the instant case, he has no
objection, if the sentence of the petitioner, which has been
awarded by the learned court below, is set-aside.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite
party-State, on the other hand, has submitted that so far as the
conviction is concerned, the same is based on concurrent
findings and that may not be interfered with. But with regard to
the sentence, the learned counsel submits that if the parties
have settled their dispute out of the court and have also filed
the joint compromise petition, he has no objection if the
sentence of the petitioner is modified.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court
finds altogether three accused persons have faced the trial
including the petitioner and others were acquitted on account
of benefit of doubt by the learned trial court and the petitioner-
husband was convicted under Section 498A of Indian Penal
Code.
9. This Court finds that there are concurrent findings
recorded by the learned courts below after appreciating the
materials on record. It has been categorically held by the
learned appellate court that there is consistent evidence of
P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.6 that Bijeta Devi
(Opposite Party No.2), was married in the year 1985 with the
petitioner and at the time of marriage, her father gifted some
articles. It has also been recorded that the opposite party no.2
went to matrimonial house and remained there for 2-3 years in
good condition. Thereafter, the accused including the petitioner
started beating and abusing and demanded pots, bed and
motorcycle and also asked her to bring pulses and grains and
thereafter, she was driven out from the matrimonial house.
P.W.3 had also stated that the opposite party no. 2 reached
village with torn clothes.
10. There are concurrent findings recorded by the learned
courts below convicting the petitioner for offence under Section
498A of Indian Penal Code. There is no illegality or perversity
in the impugned judgments of conviction and there is no scope
for interference in the impugned judgements on the point of
conviction of the petitioner. Accordingly, the conviction of the
petitioner for offence under section 498A is upheld.
11. However, the fact remains that the petitioner and
opposite party no.2 have entered into compromise and have
also filed an interlocutory application being I.A. No.488 of 2021,
a joint compromise petition on account of settlement arrived at
between the parties at JHALSA. It also appears that the
petitioner had surrendered before the learned court below
during the pendency of the present case on 21.02.2014 and was
directed to be enlarged on bail vide order dated 07.03.2014. The
age of the petitioner on the date of conviction i.e., on 14.12.2005
was 42 years and accordingly, the present age of the petitioner
is about 58 years. The petitioner has faced the rigors of criminal
case since 14.02.1996. The petitioner and the opposite party no.2
have entered into compromise through mediation and both of
them have filed a joint compromise petition being I.A. No.488
of 2021.
12. In the aforesaid circumstances and considering the
submissions of the parties, this Court finds that the ends of
justice would be served if the sentence of the petitioner is
confined to the period already undergone by the petitioner in
custody.
13. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner is sustained
and the sentence is confined to the period already undergone
by the petitioner in jail custody.
14. The present criminal revision petition is disposed of with
the aforesaid modification of sentence.
15. I.A. No.488 of 2021 is accordingly disposed of.
16. Bailors will be discharged from their liabilities under the
bail bond.
17. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are closed.
18. Let the lower courts record be immediately sent back to
the court concerned.
19. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned
court below through 'E-mail/FAX'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul/Saurav
