Pradeep Prasad Yadav vs State Of Jharkhand

The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 19th May, 2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Criminal Appeal No.

26 of 2013, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner and the co-convicts has been partly allowed.

The learned Trial Court vide its judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12th June, 2013, in G.R. Case No. 261 of 2009, (T.R. No. 464 of

2013) convicted the petitioner along with the co-convicts for the offence under Section 498 A of the I.P.C., however, acquitted them from the charges

levelled against them under Sections 341 & 323 of the I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

The learned appellate court after hearing the parties and perusing the documents came to the conclusion that the prosecution has able to prove the

charge under Section 498 A of the I.P.C. only against the present petitioner and the co-convicts were acquitted.

Ms. Shilpi Sandil, learned amicus assisted by Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy submits that there is a general allegation of dowry and cruelty against all the

accused persons and when on the same set of allegation the other co-convicts were acquitted, there is no reasoning to sustain the conviction of the

petitioner. She further submits that when the petitioner himself has been acquitted by the learned trial Court under Sections 323 and 341 of the I.P.C

and also under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act so the question of physical cruelty is out of question. Even the mental cruelty is not sustainable in

view of the fact that the other co-convicts were acquitted on the same set of allegations. She further submits that cruelty is a very vague term and

unless the prosecution proves it specifically and categorically then only the Court has jurisdiction to convict any person under this section. The

alternative argument of the learned Amicus is that the petitioner is not a habitual offender and it is only in this case he has been convicted. She further

submits that the petitioner is a middle aged person and if he will be sent back to custody then his entire carrier will be ruined and the entire family will

face the consequence. In view of the aforesaid fact some leniency may be granted by this Court.

Per contra, the learned Addl. P.P. for the State support the impugned order and submitted that the petitioner has failed to point out any error in the

orders so as to interfere with the same.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned orders and the lower court record and keeping in mind the limited

scope of revision jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings given by the courts below and as such the judgment of conviction passed

by the learned trial Court and upheld by the learned appellate Court, is hereby, confirmed.

However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year, 2009 and more than 10 year has elapsed and it

appears from record that the petitioner has remained in custody for about 179 days. Further, the record transpires that he has never misused the

privilege of bail. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that sending the petitioner back to prison will not serve any fruitful purpose,

rather the sentence should be modified in lieu of fine.

Thus, the sentence passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioner is

sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone subject to the payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/-.

It is made clear that the petitioner is directed to pay the aforesaid fine of Rs. 5,000/- within a period of three months from today before the learned

District Legal Services Authority, Bokaro, failing which he shall serve rest of the sentence as directed by the learned trial court.

With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence only, this revision application is disposed of.

The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bonds subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.

The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court legal Services Committee shall reimburse the learned Amicus on submission of bill(s) for this case. She shall be

paid as provided under the Notification dated 23.11.2017.

Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.

Let this order be sent to the learned trial court and the District Legal Services Authority, Bokaro through FAX.