Basiruddin Khan Son Of Late Latif Khan vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 113 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Basiruddin Khan Son Of Late Latif Khan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 January, 2024

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                                        1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                      Cr. Revision No. 1262 of 2017

1. Basiruddin Khan son of Late Latif Khan
2. Parwez Alam @ Pravej Alam, son of Basiruddin Khan
3. Jahada Bibi @ Johida Bibi
4. Alimuddin Khan, son of Late Latif Khan
   All resident of village Dumariya, P.O. Dumariya, and P.S. Garhwa, District
   Palamau now Garhwa (Jharkhand)                     ...      ...     Petitioners
                                    Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Gulshan Shiri, wife of Parwez Alam now wife of Seikh Md. Nizamuddin, at
    present village - Pipra, P.O. Dumariya, P.S. & District Garhwa (Jharkhand).
                                                      ...      ... Opp. Parties

                                 With
                      Cr. Revision No. 1524 of 2017

Gulshan Shiri, D/o Md. Idris Khan, W/o Parwez Alam at present resident off
village - Pipra, P.O. - Dumariya, and P.S. - Garhwa, District-Garhwa
                                                     ...      ...     Petitioner
                                   Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Basiruddin Khan, son of Late Latif Khan
3. Parwez Alam @ Pravej Alam, son of Basiruddin Khan
4. Jahaada Bibi @ Jahida Bibi, W/o Basiruddin Khan
5. Alimuddin Khan, son of Late Latif Khan
    All resident of village Dumaria, P.O. Dumariya, and P.S. Garhwa, District
    Garhwa (Jharkhand)                               ...      ... Opp. Parties
                                   ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumar Trivedi, Advocate (In Cr. Rev. No. 1262/2017) : Mr. S. T. Sajid, Advocate Mr. Saibal Mitra, Advocate (In Cr. Rev. No. 1524/2017) For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. S. T. Sajid, Advocate (In Cr. Rev. No. 1262/2017) For the O. P. Nos. 2 to 5 : Mr. Ajay Kumar Trivedi, Advocate (Cr. Revision No. 1524 of 2017) For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Roy, APP (In Cr. Rev. No. 1524/2017) Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Public Prosecutor (In Cr. Rev. No. 1262/2017)

---

09/05.01.2024

1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

2. Both these criminal revision applications arise out of common judgment dated 27.07.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2012, whereby the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal with modification of sentence as under: -

"................. Thus the sentence for two years and six months R.I. for the offences u/s 498(A) of the IPC and 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act is hereby set-aside and replaced by Section 4 of the Probation of Offender Act to maintain good conduct by the appellants/convicts for two years with one surety each who must be their nearest relative. However, the imposition of fine amounting to Rs. 1000/- (One Thousand) to each convict is upheld as it would remain as it is. Further in order to compensate the victim lady i.e. complainant Gulshan Shiri, the appellant/accused Prawez Alam (husband) is ordered to pay a compensation to her amounting to Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) whereas the appellants/accused Basaruddin Khan, Jahada Bibi and Alimuddin Khan who are old aged persons are ordered to pay a compensation to the said Gulshan Shiri amounting to Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each."

3. The petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 1524 of 2017 is the victim of the case and is the wife of Parwez Alam who is petitioner No. 2 in Criminal Revision No. 1262 of 2017. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 in Criminal Revision No. 1262 of 2017 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 1524 of 2017. Petitioner No. 4 in Criminal Revision No. 1262 of 2017 is the brother of petitioner No. 1 in Criminal Revision No. 1262 of 2017.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 1262 of 2017 submits that the petitioners are the victims of false case lodged by the complainant-Gulshan Shiri. The learned counsel has submitted that the learned court below has not properly considered the materials on record while upholding the conviction of the petitioners. The learned counsel has submitted that though the complainant has alleged that she was assaulted and was thrown out of her matrimonial home but no injury report has been produced before the learned court below to show that she suffered any injury rather the report of the doctor showed that she was suffering from malaria. The learned counsel submits that the order of conviction affirmed by the appellate court calls for interference in revisional jurisdiction.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 1524 of 2017 has submitted that the modification of sentence by the learned appellate court and directing the convicts to furnish bond under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act suffers from illegality, inasmuch

as, no report from the Probation Officer was called for in terms of Section 4(2) of the Probation of Offenders Act. The learned counsel has submitted that otherwise also the condition precedent for modifying the sentence has not been satisfied and, therefore, the impugned order calls for interference. The learned counsel has also submitted that the order passed by the learned appellate court has not been complied , inasmuch as, the required bond has not been furnished by the convicts and the entire purpose of furnishing of bond under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act has been frustrated.

6. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Hashim vs. State of U.P. & Others passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1218 of 2016 dated 28.11.2016 to submit that the word 'expedient' has also been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it has been held that while exercising power under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act the nature of offence and the conditions incorporated therein are required to be considered and only if the Court forms the opinion that it is expedient to release the convict on probation for the good conduct regard being had to the circumstances of the case such order could have been passed. The learned counsel submits that the mandate of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act having not been followed, the impugned order modifying the sentence calls for interference by this Court.

7. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the opposite parties in each of the cases have opposed the prayer made in the respective cases.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned appellate court does not call for any interference. The learned counsel has submitted that both the courts below have considered the materials available on record and have upheld the conviction and so far as modification of sentence is concerned, the application of mind by the learned appellate court is reflected in the order. The learned counsel has submitted that both the husband and wife have got re- married and this aspect of the matter has also been considered by the learned appellate court while modifying the sentence. The learned counsel has further submitted that since the lower Court records have been called for in the present cases nothing is mentioned as to whether the order passed by the learned appellate court has been complied by the accused or not. The learned counsel has submitted that in case it has not yet been complied, sometime may be

granted to comply the same including the payment of compensation as directed by the learned appellate court failing which the consequences may follow as per law.

9. Arguments concluded.

10. Post these cases under the heading 'for judgment' on 16th February 2024.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul