Jharkhand High Court
Santosh Kumar Dubey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 July, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1073 of 2003
-------
Santosh Kumar Dubey ..... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ..... ....Opposite Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhijit Kumar Singh, Amicus
For the O.P.-State: Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, APP
.........
07/22.07.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This revision application is directed against the
judgment dated 5.9.2003 passed by learned Sessions
Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No.9 of 1999; whereby
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
11.3.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class, Chas, Bokaro, corresponding to G.R. No.557/92,
T.R. No.108/99; whereby the petitioner was convicted and
sentenced to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment with a
fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 498A IPC and
in case of default of payment to further undergo S.I. for two
months; has been affirmed and the appeal filed by the
petitioner was dismissed.
3. The prosecution case in short is that the
marriage of the victim-Champa Devi was solemnized with
the petitioner in the year 1980. After marriage they started
their conjugal life peacefully. After few years, the petitioner
and his family members started torturing and assaulted
her for dowry. Thereafter, a complaint was filed by the
complainant-father of the victim wherein it is also alleged
that the petitioner solemnized second marriage with Geeta
Devi on instigation of his family members in the year 1987.
On the basis of the said complaint, the instant
case was registered and after investigation police submitted
charge-sheet. Accordingly, charge was framed against the
accused persons including the petitioner for which they
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and finally the
petitioner was convicted and rest of the accused persons
were acquitted.
4. Mr. Abhijit Kr. Singh, learned Amicus submits
that though on the same set of evidence other accused were
acquitted, however the petitioner being husband has been
convicted by the court below.
Learned amicus made an alternative prayer for
modifying the sentence in lieu of fine as now the petitioner
is aged about 58 years and he also remained in custody
about 44 days and sending him back to jail at this stage
even for short period will hamper the entire family; as such
the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.
5. Learned counsel for the State supported the
judgments and submits that there is no error in the finding
given by the courts below. As such, the conviction cannot
be set aside, however the sentence may be modified in lieu
of fine.
6. After going through the impugned judgment
including the lower court records and keeping in mind the
limited submissions of the learned counsel for the parties
and also the scope of revision jurisdiction, I am not inclined
to interfere with the finding of the courts below and as such
the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court
and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby,
sustained.
7. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is
apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1992
and about 30 years have elapsed and the petitioner must
have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 30 years. It
is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the
privilege of bail and he also remained in custody about 44
days.
8. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion
that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the
petitioner/convict back to prison; rather interest of justice
would be sufficed if the sentence is modified in lieu of fine.
9. Thus, the sentence passed by the trial court and
upheld by the appellate court is, hereby, modified to the
extent that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the
period already undergone, subject to the payment of fine of
Rs. 5,500/-.
10. It is made clear that petitioner shall pay the
aforesaid fine within a period of 4 months from today before
the DLSA, Bokaro; failing which he shall serve rest of the
sentence as ordered by the learned courts below.
11. With the aforesaid observations, directions and
modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision
application is disposed of.
12. The petitioner shall be discharged from the
liability of his bail bond, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid
condition.
13. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal
Services Committee shall reimburse the learned Amicus on
submission of bills as per the guidelines.
14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
court below, Secretary, DLSA, Bokaro and also to the
petitioner through the officer-in-charge of concerned police
station.
15. Let the lower court record be sent to the court
concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Fahim/-
