Jharkhand High Court
Dulal Mandal @ Dulal Kumar Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 868 of 2018
Dulal Mandal @ Dulal Kumar Mandal ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Smt. Sarswati Mandal ..... Opp. Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Petitioners : Mr. D.C. Mishra, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. S.P. Roy, Advocate.
Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate.
---------
ORAL ORDER
Order No. 10/Dated: 2nd April, 2024
1. The instant criminal revision is directed against judgement /
order dated 30.05.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, 1st, Jamtara in Criminal Appeal No.49/2017, whereby and
whereunder, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed
the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 08.11.2017 passed by learned A.C.J.M., Jamtara in
T.R. No. 340/2017 arising out of Jamtara Fatehpur P.S. Case No.
19/2012 dated 04.07.2012 corresponding G.R. Case No. 397/2012,
whereby, the petitioner was held guilty for the offences under
Sections 323 and 498A I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo S.I. for six
months for the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and two years
for offence under Section 498A along with fine of Rs.3,000/- and
further to undergo S.I. of 15 days in default of payment of fine.
Page 1|5
2. Factual matrix of this case arises out of Complaint Case No.
112/2012 filed by the informant Sarswati Mandal (wife of the
petitioner) which was sent to Fatehpur Police Station for
registration of FIR and investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
It is alleged that complainant was married with the present
petitioner on 20.02.2011 and started discharging her conjugal
obligations, but her husband was not happy with her and always
used to taunt her for her colour complexion and called her as kali-
kali and also demanded Rs.1,50,000/- as dowry, which could not be
fulfilled, due to which, she was subjected to cruelty and torture in
various ways by physical assault and mental harassment and
ultimately driven away from her matrimonial home.
3. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the
present petitioner for the offences under Sections 323, 406 and
498A of the I.P.C. Charges were framed. The petitioner denied the
charges and claimed for trial. After trial, the petitioner was
convicted for the offence under Sections 323 and 498A of the I.P.C.,
which was assailed in the Criminal Appeal No.49/2017, which was
dismissed and conviction and sentence of the petitioner was
affirmed by the appellate court, which has been assailed in this
revision.
4. Both the parties have appeared in person at the time of
hearing and a joint compromise petition in the shape of I.A. No.
Page 2|5
10296 of 2023 has been filed, which is not disputed by the opposite
party No. 2 (wife)/informant of this case. She has also appeared
with their child Keshav Mandal, aged about 10 years.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the
parties have settled their dispute outside the Court and are residing
together and discharging their conjugal obligations with each other
and minor child is also studying in Class-IV at Bal Sainik
Vidyalaya Shiv Pahad, Dumka. Both parties are residing with due
dignity and honour and leading a happy conjugal life. Petitioner is
also working at Block Saraiyahat at Dumka on the post of Gram
Rozgar Sewak and is maintaining his family. It is the first offence
of the petitioner and he has never been convicted in any offence. In
the aforementioned factual background and change of
circumstances, it is argued that without going into the merits of
judgement, the petitioner may be released on probation under
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which shall meet
the ends of justice in this case.
6. On the other hand, learned Addl.P.P. for State assisted by
learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 have raised no objection
against the above contention regarding release of petitioner on
probation bond.
Page 3|5
7. In the aforementioned circumstances, keeping in view, the
paramount interest of the family life of both parties along with a
minor child, it is expedient in the interest of justice to extend the
benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 instead
of directing to undergo sentence of imprisonment as awarded by
learned Court below.
8. Accordingly, the sentence awarded by the trial court is
modified to the extent that the petitioner shall be released on
probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
on furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) along with one
surety of like amount with condition that in case of violation of
condition of bond petitioner shall appear before the concerned trial
court to receive the remaining substantive sentence of
imprisonment whenever called upon by trial court, the term of bond
shall be for a period of three years and in the meantime, the
petitioner is further directed to file his fixed abode at the time of
furnishing the bond and maintain peace and be of good behaviour
towards the complainant and report once in a month before the
concerned Probation Officer.
However, the complainant shall be at liberty to file an
application before the concerned trial court for serving the rest of
the sentence, if the petitioner deliberately violates the conditions of
Page 4|5
bond. If the petitioner wants to change his fixed abode within the
above said period of three years, the same shall also be reported
before the concerned trial court with the consent of the
complainant.
9. In view of above discussions and reasons, the conviction of
petitioner is maintained with modification in the sentence.
10. Petitioner is further directed to furnish the bond under
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 as stated above
within three months from the date of this order.
11. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is disposed of.
12. Let the copy of this order along with record of trial court be
sent immediately for information and needful to the concerned
court.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Sunil-Vikas/
Page 5|5
