Jharkhand High Court
Shyam Sundar Pradhan @ Shyam ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No.985 of 2010
--------
Shyam Sundar Pradhan @ Shyam Shankar Pradhan @ Amin
Pradhan @ syam Sundar ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opp. Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.C.P. Sah, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl.P.P.
---------
06/18.01.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This criminal revision application is directed against
the judgment dated 13.08.2010 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Seraikella-Kharswan at Seraikella in Criminal
Appeal No. 43 of 2008, dismissing the appeal and upholding
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
23.06.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st
Class, Seraikella in G.R. Case No. 290 of 2004, corresponding
to T.R. No.145 of 2008, whereby the petitioner has been
convicted for the offence under Section 498 A of I.P.C. and
sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of one year and fine of
Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine the petitioner was
further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of one month and the period undergone in judicial custody
was set off.
3. The prosecution case, as per the F.I.R., in brief is
that the petitioner, who is husband of the informant,
solemnized second marriage after thirteen years of marriage
and on 20.4.2004 she was assaulted and was driven out of the
matrimonial home.
4. At the outset, Mr. R.C.P. Sah, learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that there is a vague and omnibus
allegation against the petitioner. No specific date has been
given by the prosecution witnesses and more over the father of
the informant himself has deposed that since last thirteen
years no altercation took place between the husband and the
wife. He made alternative argument to the extent that apart
from the aforesaid submission the petitioner also remained in
jail custody for about two months and the incident is of the
year 2004, as such the sentence may be modified for the
period already undergone.
5. Learned counsel for the State supported the
judgment and submits that there is no error in the finding
given by the learned trial court. 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
submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also
the scope of revision jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere
with the findings of the court 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 2004 and
about 19 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have
suffered the rigors of litigation for all these years. It is not
stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail.
Further, the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part of
the petitioner or any mental depravity and he also remained in
custody for about 58 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 for the period
undergone.
9. Thus, the sentence passed by the court below is
hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced
to undergo for the period already undergone.
10. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability
of his bail bond.
11. With the aforesaid observations and modification in
sentence only, the instant revision application is disposed of.
12. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the
court below.
13. Let the lower court record be sent to the court
concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
sm/
