Doman Mahato vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 4060 Jhar

                                1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 Cr. Revision No. 376 of 2007
1. Doman Mahato
2. Jasu Kumari
3. Jagni Devi
4. Fudubala Devi                                 ..... Petitioners
                            Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Meena Devi                                ..... Opposite Parties
                            ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, APP For the O.P. No.2 : M/s B.R. Rochan, Arun Kumar, Advocates

--------

10/ 10.10.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant application is directed against the

judgment dated 13.02.2007, passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge-13, Dhanbad, in criminal appeal No. 98 of 2005,

whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners has been partly

allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 18.05.2005, passed in Complaint Case No.726 of 2001,

corresponding to T.R. No. 1562 of 2005, by the learned Sub

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, whereby the petitioner

No.1-Doman Mahato has been convicted under Section 498 A

IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to

undergo imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and

one year with fine of Rs.1,000/-, respectively and Petitioner Nos.

2, 3 & 4 were convicted under Section 498 A IPC and were

sentenced to undergo imprisonment of one year with fine of

Rs.1,000/- each; has been modified to the extent that the learned

appellate court has set aside the conviction of petitioner No.1

under Section 4 of D.P. Act and sustained the conviction under

Section 498A IPC; however, reduced the sentence from three

years to two years of the petitioner No.1-Doman Mahato under

Section 498 A IPC.

3. The prosecution case in brief is based upon the

complaint petition of the complainant-Meena Devi, against the

petitioners and cognizance has been taken against the petitioners;

for which the petitioners pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried. After trial, the petitioners were found guilty for the offences

and they were convicted. Being aggrieved, the petitioners

preferred appeal before the learned appellate court which was

partly allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners confines his

argument on the question of sentence and submits that the

petitioner No.1 remained in custody for about 122 days and

petitioner Nos. 2, 3 & 4 remained in custody for about 54 days

and they are middle aged persons and sending them back to

custody will hamper their entire family and during entire period

of bail, they 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

court records and keeping in mind the submissions of the learned

counsel for the parties 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 2001 and 21 years have

elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of

litigation for the last 21 years. Further, petitioners remained in

custody for some days and during entire period of bail they 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 petitioners back

to prison.

9. Thus, the sentence passed by the trial court and

modified by the appellate court is hereby further modified to the

extent that all the petitioners except petitioner No.1-Doman

Mahato are sentenced to undergo for the period already

undergone.

Petitioner No.1-Doman Mahato, shall deposit fine of

Rs.25,000/- in lieu of rest part of sentence. The amount shall be

deposited by the petitioner- Doman Mahato before the learned

trial court in favour of the complainant-Meena Devi, within four

months from today. The learned trial court shall further pay the

aforesaid amount of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) to the

complainant-Meena Devi on proper verification.

10. With the aforesaid observation, direction and

modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision

application stands disposed of.

11. The petitioner Nos.2 to 4 shall be discharged from the

liability of their bail bonds.

So far as petitioner No.1-Doman Mahato is concerned,

he shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bond, subject

to deposit of fine of Rs.25,000/- before the learned trial court in

favour of the complainant-Meena Devi. As aforesaid, the

aforesaid fine amount shall be paid by the learned trial court to

the complainant-Meena Devi by way of compensation after

proper verification.

12. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the

courts below and also to the petitioners as well as O.P. No.2 by

the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station.

13. Let the lower court record be sent back to the court

concerned forthwith.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Pramanik/