Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Santanwa Saha son of Late Mansa Saha – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 421 of 2012
Decided on : 06-05-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498A and 494 - Payment of fine - Transfer entire amount - Present criminal revision petition is directed against Judgment passed by District - Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal whereby and appellate court affirmed conviction and sentence of Petitioner Sections of Indian Penal Code and also affirmed conviction and sentence of Petitioner Section Indian Penal Code passed by trial court and dismissed criminal appeal - Petitioners had preferred criminal appeal against Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Judicial Class in whereby and where Petitioner was convicted and sentenced Sections Indian Penal Code and Petitioner was convicted and sentenced Section Indian Penal Code – Held, This Court finds that both courts below have found sufficient evidence to convict Petitioner Sections Indian Penal Code - This Court does not find any illegality or perversity or miscarriage of justice in conviction of Petitioner Sections Indian Penal Code calling for any interference in revision jurisdiction - On point of sentence petitioner - Court finds that Complaint case was filed since then more than years have already elapsed and Petitioner has faced rigors of criminal case for long period more than years and present case is his first offence as also at present is aged about years - Considering aforesaid aspects of case this Court is of considered view that ends of justice would be served if sentence of Petitioner is modified and reduced to some extent and fine amount is enhanced - Accordingly sentence of Petitioner for offence Section of Indian Penal Code is modified and reduced to Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine amount is enhanced Rupees One to be deposited before trial court within period of six months from date of communication of this order to court below - Court is not inclined to interfere with sentence passed Section Indian Penal Code - Both sentences shall run concurrently and period of custody already undergone by Petitioner shall be set off - If fine amount is not deposited within time frame as indicated above Petitioner would serve remaining sentence imposed by trial court - Trial court is directed to remit fine amount so deposited by Petitioner - Complainant upon due identification – Petition allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.
2. Heard Mr. Tarun Kumar, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.
3. Nobody appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2.
4. The present criminal revision petition is directed against the Judgment dated 02.05.2012 passed by the learned District & Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Sahibganj in Criminal Appeal No.69/2011, whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence of Petitioner No.1 under Sections 498A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code and also affirmed the conviction and sentence of Petitioner No.2 under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned trial court and dismissed the criminal appeal.
5. The petitioners had preferred the criminal appeal against the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 24.08.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rajmahal in P.C.R. Case No.290 of 2006/T.R. No.1032 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the Petitioner No.1 was convicted and sentenced under Sections 498A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code and the Petitioner No.2 was convicted and sentenced under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. The learned trial court had sentenced the Petitioner No.1 to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 02 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and in default in payment of fine, to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for 01 month and had further sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 01 year and fine of Rs.1,000/-for the offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and in default in payment of fine, to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for 15 days. The learned trial court had further directed that both the sentences shall concurrently.
7. The learned trial court had sentenced the Petitioner No.2 to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 01 year and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and in default in payment of fine, to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for 15 days.
8. However, the learned trial court acquitted the rest 06 accused persons namely, Sukha Saha, Jagdish Saha, Kartik Saha, Gangaram Saha, Gunjo Devi and Shiva Saha from the charges under Sections 504 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code giving benefit of doubt.
Arguments on behalf of the Petitioners
9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Petitioner No.1 has been convicted under Sections 498A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code and the Petitioner No.2 has been convicted under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The Petitioner No.1 is the husband of the complainant and Petitioner No.2 is the second wife of the Petitioner No.1. He submitted that the case was filed after a long time from marriage and the only allegation is that the Complainant had sold her mother’s land and ornaments and had deposited Rs. 65,000/- in bank in the year 1995 and the Petitioner No. 1 subjected physical and mental torture to her and stopped food and clothes for demand of that Rs. 65,000/- and ultimately, he had driven her out from her matrimonial house. It was further alleged that on 12.06.2006, the petitioner No.1 performed second marriage with Petitioner No.2 and there was no divorce between Petitioner No.1 and Opposite Party No.2.
10. The learned counsel also submitted that other accused in the case were alleged to have facilitated the second marriage of the Petitioner No.1, but they were acquitted by the learned trial court giving benefit of doubt.
11. He further submitted that it has come in the judgment of the learned trial court that the marriage between the Petitioner No.1 and the Opposite Party No.2 was performed 35 years ago and as per the evidence of the Complainant, three children were born out of the wedlock, but all of them died due to malnutrition. The Complainant has stated in her deposition that amount of Rs. 65,000/- was in the joint account
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
