Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
Basiruddin Khan son of Late Latif Khan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 1262 of 2017, Cr. Rev. No. 1524 of 2017
Decided on : 16-02-2024
[CRIMINAL LAW] - [DOWRY PROHIBITION AND CRUELTY] - [IPC 498-A, DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT 1961, PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT 1958] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, which penalizes cruelty by a husband or his relatives, and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which penalizes giving or taking dowry. The court interpreted the necessity of proving mental and physical cruelty in dowry cases and emphasized the importance of the nature of the offence when considering probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. The appellate court's modification of sentences was scrutinized for legality, particularly the lack of a probation officer's report and the failure to suspend sentences rather than set them aside, leading to a remand for proper sentencing.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves two criminal revision applications stemming from a conviction under Section 498-A of the IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complainant alleged that after her marriage, she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty for dowry demands. The trial court convicted the accused, but the appellate court modified the sentences, replacing them with probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, which the complainant contested as inadequate.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction under Section 498-A IPC and modified the conviction under the Dowry Prohibition Act from Section 3 to Section 4, emphasizing the need for proper sentencing procedures and the necessity of considering the nature of the offence when applying probation.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellate court was justified in modifying the sentences under the Probation of Offenders Act without proper procedure? 2. Whether the evidence supported the conviction under the relevant sections?
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the nature of the offence must be considered when applying probation laws and that the appellate court erred in setting aside sentences without following due process, including the requirement for a probation officer's report.
Final Decision: The appellate court's order modifying the sentences was set aside, and the case was remitted for appropriate sentencing in accordance with the law, with a directive to consider the nature of the offences and the circumstances of the case.
JUDGMENT :
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
2. Both these criminal revision applications arise out of judgment dated 27.07.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2012 by the learned appellate Court.
3. Criminal Revision No. 1524 of 2017 has been filed by the complainant of the case and Criminal Revision No. 1262 of 2017 has been filed by the convicts.
4. The petitioners of Criminal Revision No. 1262 of 2017 were convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa vide judgment dated 24.02.2012 passed in Complaint Case No. 778 of 2006 corresponding to T.R. No. 221 of 2012 under Section 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/- each for offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code with default clause and further rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
5. The appellate Court confirmed the conviction but set-aside the sentences and replaced it by Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to maintain good conduct for two years with one surety each and fine imposed under Section 498-A IPC was upheld. The learned appellate Court further directed the convict husband (Parwez Alam) to pay compensation to the complainant/victim lady to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- and directed the other convicts to pay compensation to the complainant/victim lady to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- each. All the convicts who are petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 1262 of 2017 were directed to appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa within a period of one month from the appellate Court’s order dated 27.07.2017 to comply the modified sentence and it was directed that in case of failure in making payment of compensation the same will be realized in accordance with law.
6. The following chart would reflect the conviction/sentence given by the trial Court and its modification by the appellate Court: -
| Trial Court | Appellate Court |
| Conviction: - under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Sentence under Section 498A IPC: - two years RI and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, three months SI. Sentence under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – RI for six months. Section 379 of IPC All of them were acquitted for alleged offence under Section 379 of IPC. | i. Conviction upheld under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. ii. Sentences for offence u/S 498- A of IPC and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has been set aside and replaced by Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act asking the convicts to appear before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa to comply with the modified sentence and furnish one surety of close relative each to maintain good conduct for two years. Fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- was sustained. iii. Victim compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by Parwez Alam (Husband) iv. Victim compensation @ Rs. 10,000/- each to be paid by other three accused. |
7. The petitioners of Criminal Revision No. 1262 of 2017 are aggrieved by their conviction and dismissal of appeal against conviction and the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 1524 of 2017 being the complainant/victim lady/wife of Parwez Alam (convict) is aggrieved by the modification of sentence by the learned appellate Court as mentioned above.
Arguments of the petitioners (convicts) in Criminal Revision No. 1262 of 2017
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 1262 of 2017 submitted that the petitioners are the victims of false case lodged by the complainant-Gulshan Shiri. The learned counsel h
The court established that the application of the Probation of Offenders Act must consider the nature of the offence and that procedural requirements, such as obtaining a probation officer's report, ....
Offence of Cruelty by husband or his relatives - Reduction of Sentence - Evidences against petitioners and gravity of offences committed by them petitioners do not deserve any leniency on point of th....
Offence of Cruelty - Conviction affirmed - Scope of revisional jurisdiction this court is not inclined to interfere with impugned judgment of conviction of petitioner under section 498(A) of Indian P....
The judgment reinforces the legal principle that evidence of cruelty and dowry demands, as defined under IPC Section 498A and the Dowry Prohibition Act, is sufficient for conviction, and that subsequ....
Petitioner acquitted of charges under Section 498A IPC due to insufficient evidence of cruelty, demonstrating the High Court's role in correcting procedural misjudgments.
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
