Netai Bauri vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

This revision application is directed against the judgment 09.09.2002 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Cr. Appeal No.88 of

2000, whereby and whereunder petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to go R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/- only and in default of payment

of fine, S.I. of 1 month, for offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, thereby confirming the judgment dated 03.08.2000 passed by the

Judicial Magistrate Bokaro in C.P. Case No.06 of 1994.

When the matter was listed on 02.12.2020, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not challenging the judgment of conviction, rather he

will confine this revision application and the prayer only on the point of sentence. Today the matter is being heard at length.

On the point of sentence, counsel for the petitioner submits that the sentence is too harsh. He submits that one year rigorous imprisonment is on the

higher side. He submits that no proper hearing on the point of sentence was given to the petitioner. He submits that no cogent reasons have been

assigned as to why imprisonment of 1 year was inflicted upon this petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the parties have already

settled their dispute and the wife is living in the house of the convict.

Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that the petitioner has been rightly inflicted punishment as there is ample evidence to suggest

cruelty and torture. He submits that one year sentence is the bare minimum, which the Magistrate could have inflicted on the petitioner.

After hearing the counsel for the parties, I have gone through the records. In I.A. No. 5304 of 2020, petitioner has annexed a document, which is

an affidavit sworn by the wife of this petitioner, which suggests that she has compromised and is residing with the husband, i.e., the petitioner. The

dispute is matrimonial in nature and the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. He has remained in

custody for 7 months 18 days.

Considering the fact of settlement and the period of custody and further considering that the petitioner has faced rigors of this proceeding for nearly

26 years coupled with the fact that the petitioner is aged about more than 70 years, I am inclined to modify the sentence awarded to the petitioner vide

judgment and order of sentence dated 03.08.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Bokaro in C.P. Case No.06 of 1994, as confirmed by the

judgment dated 09.09.2002 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Cr. Appeal No.88 of 2000, and convert the same to the period

already undergone by the petitioner.

This criminal revision application is, thus, partly allowed to the above extent. Petitioner is directed to be released from the custody forthwith.