Amit Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 10323 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Amit Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 November, 2024

Author: Rajesh Kumar

Bench: Rajesh Kumar

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              Criminal Revision No.171 of 2023
                            ----

Amit Kumar, aged about 42 years, S/o Balmiki Singh, R/o Near Govt. Primary School, Nutandih, P.O. Jagjiwan Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand .... .... Petitioner

-Versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Kavita Kumar, W/o Amit Kumar, D/o Rajendra Prasad, R/o Near Dhanbad Dairy, Rani Road, P.O. Bhuda, P.S. Dhansar, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand .... .... Opposite Parties

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, Adv.

For the State                           : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, A.P.P.
                                         ----
               th
10/Dated: 11 November, 2024

1.     Heard the parties.

2. The present criminal revision has been filed against the judgment dated 20.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No.179 of 2017 whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has upheld the judgment and order of conviction dated 31.08.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad, in Trial No.1125 of 2017, arising out of C.P. Case No.825 of 2011, whereby, the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo Rigours Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default thereof, he has further been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two months.

3. It appears that the marriage was solemnized between the parties on 19.04.2008 as per Hindu Rituals & Customs. They have been blessed with twin daughters. There was an allegation of cruelty and accordingly, complaint case has been lodged.

4. The complainant including herself has examined four witnesses in support of the allegation. After considering the evidence brought on record, the Trial Court has convicted the petitioner/revisionist for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC and taking lenient view, one year rigorous imprisonment has been awarded to the petitioner/revisionist with fine.

5. The above order has been challenged by filing criminal appeal being Criminal Appeal No.179 of 2017. The Appellate Court has also evaluated the evidence and findings, the guilt has been upheld and the quantum of punishment also.

6. From perusal of the record, it appears that there is sufficient material for sustaining the conviction as there is concurrent finding given by both the court.

7. So far as the sentencing part is concerned, lenient view has already been taken by the Court below and as such, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the present criminal revision application is hereby, rejected.

8. In view of the disposal of the present criminal revision, pending interlocutory application(s), if any, are also stands disposed of.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

Raja/-

Uploaded




Page | 2                                                       Criminal Revision No.171 of 2023