Kailash Mongari vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This revision has been preferred by the applicant against the judgment dated 09.07.2010 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 01/2010 arising out of judgment dated 17.12.2009, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'JMFC'), in Criminal Case No. 755/2009.

According to the case of prosecution, the applicant is the husband of victim/complainant Kavita. Prior to two years from lodging the FIR, their marriage was solemnized. It is alleged that after some time of their marriage, the applicant and his family members were treated cruelty with the complainant on account of demand of dowry. They demanded Rs. 50,000/- and a motorcycle from the complainant as dowry. It is further alleged that when parents of the complainant and her grand maternal father reached the house of the applicant, at that time also, she was assaulted by the applicant and his family members. Thereafter, they have taken her with them. Later on, it was came into their knowledge that the applicant is already married with some other lady. On the basis of report made by the complainant, offence has been registered against the applicant.

After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed before the learned JMFC. Learned JMFC vide judgment dated 17.12.2009, convicted the applicant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Against the said judgment of learned JMFC, a criminal appeal has been preferred by the applicant/accused. Vide impugned judgment dated 09.07.2010, the Appellate Court affirmed the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and also affirmed the sentence and the fine amount. Hence, this revision.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that he does not want to press this revision on merits and confines his argument to the sentence part only. He further submits that the applicant has already undergone about 9 days in jail. He has no criminal antecedents and has facing the lis since 2009 i.e. for about 13 years. Therefore, it is prayed that the jail sentence awarded to him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgment.

I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record available with utmost circumspection.

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering that the applicant is facing the lis since 2009 and there is no criminal antecedents against him. I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant under Section 498-A of the IPC is affirmed and against the conviction he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence for the above offence is also affirmed.

Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.