Jharkhand High Court
Raghunandan Pradhan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No.251 of 2014
---
Raghunandan Pradhan ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P.
---
The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel
for the parties had no objections with it and submitted that the audio and
video qualities are good.
---
08/05.10.2021: The instant revision application has been filed for setting aside the
judgment dated 18.01.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No.187 of 2011 by the
learned Principal Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur whereby the
learned Principal Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur has refused to
interfere with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
23.11.2011 passed by the court of the learned S.D.J.M, Jamshedpur in G.R.
Case No.644 of 2003/T.R. No.110 of 2011, whereby the petitioner has been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of
Rs.2000/- (two thousand) and in default thereof, further imprisonment of one
month has been imposed for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code.
As per the prosecution story, the marriage has taken place between
the parties on 29.04.1985.Thereafter, out of their wedlock, they have been
blessed with two daughters and one son. The present criminal proceeding
initiated against the husband by the wife alleging that he used to assault her
after taking liquor.
After completion of investigation, the police has charge-sheeted
through charge-sheet no.39/2003 dated 31.10.2003 under Section 498A of the
I.P.C., cognizance for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. has been
taken by the learned C.J.M., Seraikella vide order dated 20.11.2003.
To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether six witnesses have
been examined:-
P.W.1-Sewati Devi is the mother of the informant.
P.W.2-Bijeta Kumari is the daughter of the informant and the
petitioner.
P.W.3-Santosh Mahto is the co-villager of the petitioner.
P.W.4-Smita Kumari is the daughter of the informant and the
petitioner.
P.W.5-Dukhini Giri (Pradhan) is the informant.
P.W.6-Mahesh Prasad Singh is the Investigating Officer.
From perusal of the records, it appears that there is sufficient
evidence to sustain the conviction.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the revisionist has confined his
prayer only to the sentencing part stating that the revisionist is aged about 65
years and he is giving maintenance regularly to the informant. The revisionist
has remained in jail custody for a total period of 12 days and he has been
facing the rigorous trial since 2003.
On the above facts, it is prayed that that the imprisonment part may
be reduced to the period already undergone and the revisionist is ready to pay
compensation as per the mandate of Section 357 of the Cr.P.C.
This argument of the revisionist has not been opposed by the counsel
for the complainant-wife.
Considering the entire material available on records, the period of
litigation and age of the parties, this Court feels that the sentencing part should
be modified and accordingly, it is modified to the extent that the sentencing is
reduced to the period already under gone and the amount of fine Rs.2,000/- is
enhanced to Rs.75,000/- to be paid to the wife within four months from today.
If the enhanced amount is not paid by the revisionist, he will have to serve
three months simple imprisonment.
With above observation and direction, the present criminal revision
application being Criminal Revision No.251 of 2014 stands disposed of.
Since the revisionist is already on bail, he is discharged from the
liability of his bail bond.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Amar/-
