Jharkhand High Court
Tarun Pandit vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 June, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 646 of 2012
Tarun Pandit ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nityanand Prasad Choudhary, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate
---
Through Video Conferencing
7/24.06.2021
1. Heard Mr. Nityanand Prasad Choudhary, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
opposite party-State.
3. Heard Mr. Abhishek Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the opposite party No. 2.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is the sole convict in the present case and happens to be the
husband of the complainant-opposite party No. 2 who has been
convicted for the offences under Section 498-A and Section 323 of
the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel further submits that the
petitioner had filed a case being Matrimonial Suit No. 10 of 2001 on
16.03.2001 for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act and the complaint was filed on 25.04.2011. He
further submits that filing of the case under restitution of conjugal
rights clearly indicates that the petitioner is willing to keep the
opposite party No. 2. Learned counsel submits that from perusal of
the records of this case it appears that there was some dispute in
connection with the jewellery which was to be given by the petitioner
to the opposite party No. 2 which escalated and in fact the petitioner
had made an arrangement for a separate rented house for the
complainant. Learned counsel submits that in the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, conviction of the petitioner under Section
498-A IPC as well as under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code
cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Without prejudice to the
aforesaid submission, learned counsel has also submitted that the
case was instituted as back as in the year 2001 and more than 20
years have elapsed from the date of filing of the case and accordingly
some sympathetic view may be taken and sentence may be modified
as the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two years under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal
Code and 4 months for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian
Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted
that the petitioner had surrendered before the learned court below
during the pendency of the present case on 27.08.2012 and was
directed to be enlarged on bail by the order of this court dated
01.09.2012.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State as well as opposite
party No. 2 while opposing the prayer have submitted that there are
consistent findings recorded by the learned courts below after
considering the materials on record and there is no scope for
interference in the conviction of the petitioner in revisional
jurisdiction. There is neither any perversity nor any illegality in the
order passed by the learned court below.
So far as sentence is concerned, the learned counsel has submitted
that considering the facts and circumstances of this case, if this court
is inclined to modify the sentence, then some heavy fine amount may
be imposed upon the petitioner which may be directed to be remitted
to the victim-opposite party No. 2.
6. Arguments concluded.
7. Post this case on 28.06.2021 for pronouncement of judgment.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit/
