Jharkhand High Court
Badri Sah vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 May, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1094 of 2004
Badri Sah ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Ruda Devi ..... Opposite Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
Through Video Conferencing
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kr. Sah, Advocate
For the Opp. Party-State : Ms. Sweta Singh, APP
--------
06/ 06.05.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant criminal revision application is directed
against the judgment dated 22.01.2003, passed by the learned 4th
Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.1), Godda in
Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 1998/ 20 of 2002; whereby the appeal
filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 31.08.1992, passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Godda, in G.R.No.143 of 1990, T.R.
No. 615 of 1992, whereby petitioner was convicted under Section
494 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.1,000/- out
of which half of the amount was ordered to be paid to O.P. No.2-
Ruda Devi and in default of payment of fine to undergo further
two months simple imprisonment, has been sustained.
3. The prosecution case is based on the petition dated
15.12.1989 of the informant-Ruda Devi in which it is stated that
the informant Ruda Devi was married with accused Badri Sah
about 10 years prior to alleged occurrence at village Latana, P.S.
Pathargama, District Godda according to the Hindu ritual and
customs. She lived with her husband in her Sasural for about 6
years. A baby was born from their conjugal life. But after
sometime there were differences between the two of them. It is
alleged that after one year of birth of their baby, the accused
performed a second marriage with Gayatri Devi daughter of
Deval Sah, during life-time of his first wife-Ruda Devi without
giving divorce to her.
After investigation, the police authority submitted charge
sheet and the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
After trial, he has been convicted for offence under Section 494
IPC.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners confines his
argument on the question of sentence and submits that the
petitioner remained in custody for about 312 days and he is aged
about 65 years and during entire period of bail, he never misused
the privilege of bail, as such the sentence may be modified.
5. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment
and submits that there is no error in the findings given by the
Courts below. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
after going through the impugned judgments including the lower
courts records and keeping in mind the limited submissions of the
learned counsel for the petitioner and also the scope of revisional
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. So far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from
record that the incident is of the year 1989 and 33 years have
elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of
litigation for the last 33 years. Further, petitioner remained in
custody for about 312 days and now he is aged about 65 years old
and during entire period of bail he never misused the privilege of
bail.
8. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no
fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner back to
prison.
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.
10. With the aforesaid observation and modification in
sentence only, the instant criminal revision application stands
disposed of.
11. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of
his bail bonds.
12. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the
court below.
13. Let the lower court record be sent back to the court
concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Pramanik/
