Milan Singh Son Of Basu Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 2091 Jhar

                                      1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                           Cr. Revision No. 1064 of 2014

         1. Milan Singh son of Basu Singh
         2. Gouri Singh @ Gouri Shankar Singh son of Basu Singh
         3. Basu Singh @ Basudeo Singh son of Late Bal Knuwar Singh
            All are resident of Shahpur, P.O. and P.S. Chhatarpur, District
            Palamau                  ...     ...      ...    Petitioners
                               Versus
         The State of Jharkhand            ...      ...    Opp. Party
                                ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

         For the Petitioners         : Mr. Anand Kumar Sinha, Advocate
         For the Opp. Party          : Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P.

                           Through Video Conferencing


14/29.06.2021

Heard Mr. Anand Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners namely, Milan Singh and Basu Singh @ Basudeo Singh.

1. Heard Mrs. Lily Sahay, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.

2. As per the records, it appears that the present criminal revision petition was initially preferred by four petitioners, but the name of Petitioner No.2 namely, Gouri Singh @ Gouri Shankar Singh was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 30.01.2015 and the petitioner No.4 namely, Kalo Devi died on 28.11.2018 which is apparent from the affidavit dated 15.10.2020 filed by the State on 20.10.2020 and accordingly, pursuant to order dated 20.10.2020, her name has been deleted from the cause title of the criminal revision petition.

3. Accordingly, the present criminal revision petition is confined to the Petitioner No.1 namely, Milan Singh and Petitioner No.3 namely, Basu Singh @ Basudeo Singh only.

4. The present criminal revision petition is directed against the Judgment dated 19.07.2014 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge-V, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the conviction and sentence of the petitioners under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj vide Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 18.10.2012 in Complaint Case No.136/2006 (T.R. No. 160/2012) has been affirmed and the criminal appeal has been dismissed.

5. The learned Trial Court had convicted the petitioners under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced the Petitioner No.1 namely, Milan Singh to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 02 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default in payment of fine, to undergo additional Simple Imprisonment for 01 month and had sentenced the Petitioner No.3 namely, Basu Singh @ Basudeo Singh alongwith Gouri Singh @ Gouri Shankar Singh and Kalo Devi to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 01 year with fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default in payment of fine, to undergo additional Simple Imprisonment for 15 days each. However, the learned trial court acquitted the petitioners from the charge under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioners

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the impugned judgments submitted that the Petitioner No.1 namely, Milan Singh is the husband and the Petitioner No.3 namely, Basu Singh @ Basudeo Singh is the father-in-law of the Complainant. So far the rest two petitioners are concerned, the case of the Petitioner No.2 (Gouri Singh @ Gouri Shankar Singh) has been dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 30.01.2015 as he did not surrender at the stage of revision and the Petitioner No.4 (Kalo Devi) has already expired on 28.11.2018 and pursuant to order dated 20.10.2020, her name has been deleted from the cause title. Accordingly, the present

criminal revision petition is required to be considered for the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 only.

7. He further submitted that the learned trial court has acquitted all the accused persons under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and there is no finding recorded by the learned courts below that the cruelty was to such an extent that the Complainant would have committed suicide and therefore, the conviction of the petitioners under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the facts remains that the petitioners were all along on bail during trial and both have remained in jail custody from 14.11.2014 to 04.02.2015 i.e. for 02 months and 21 days at revisional stage of the case. He further submitted that the Complaint was filed as back as on 16.02.2006 and since then, more than 15 years have elapsed and the petitioner have no previous conviction and as per the trial court's judgment, on the date of conviction, the petitioners were aged about 35 years and 65 years respectively. Accordingly, the present age of the Petitioner No.1 would be about 43 years and the present age of the Petitioner No.3 would be about 73 years. He also submitted that the Complainant is already getting maintenance allowance from the Petitioner No.1 and the petitioners are law abided citizens. He further submitted that considering the aforesaid aspects of the case, some sympathetic view may be taken and the sentences of the petitioners may be modified and reduced to some extent by enhancing the fine amounts.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State

9. The learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party- State, on the other hand, opposing the prayer submitted that the acquittal of the accused under Section 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act has no bearing in the present case. She further submitted that there are consistent findings recorded by the learned courts below and the demand of property (a motor- cycle and a T.V.) as well as assault has been duly proved. She also submitted that there is no scope for interference so far as the conviction of the petitioners is concerned which is based upon concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below. She further submitted that so far as the sentences of the petitioners are concerned, the Petitioner No. 1 has been sentenced for two years simple imprisonment and the Petitioner No. 3 has been sentenced for one year simple imprisonment and the learned courts below have already taken a lenient view. She further submitted that the Petitioner No. 1 does not deserve any sympathetic view, but so far as the Petitioner No. 3 is concerned, considering his age, appropriate order may be passed and his sentence may be modified subject to enhancement of the fine amount.

10.Arguments concluded.

11.Post this case for judgment on 05.07.2021.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit/