Sekh Murslim And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard Mr. S.K. Laik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

Heard Mrs. Leena Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party.

This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 22-7-08 (corrected vide order dated 29.8.08) passed by learned Sessions Judge at

Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No.190 of 2006 whereby while allowing the appeal partly, has been pleased to set aside the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 5-8-06 passed under Section 406 I.P.C and conviction u/s 4 of Witchcraft Act and further been pleased to uphold the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5-8-06 passed by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class at Dhanbad in G.R. Case

No.2883/04 (T.R. No.110/06) arising out of Nirsa P.S. Case No.202/04 by which the petitioners were convicted for allegedly committing an offence

under Section 498A IPC and sentenced the petitioners to undergo S.I for 2 years and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine

the petitioners are further directed to undergo S.I. for 6 months.

From the order dated 24.10.2008, it appears that the present revision was admitted only on the point of sentence.

The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. S.K. Laik, while advancing his arguments has submitted that it has come in evidence before the learned

court below that the complainant has stated that she has been divorced and after divorce, she did not receive money and the articles and she has also

stated that if the money and the articles were returned, no case would have been filed. The learned counsel submits that it has also come in evidence

that only the husband and father in law of the complainant used to torture the complainant for money. The learned counsel submits that considering

this aspect of the matter, the sentence of the present petitioner, being a lady, at present about 59 years of age, who has been convicted only under

Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, be modified.

The learned counsel on behalf of the opposite party State submits that it has come during evidence before the learned court below that the mother

of the victim sold a pair of oxen and jewellery and fulfilled the dowry demand of Rs.45,000/-. The learned counsel submits that in case this Court is

inclined to modify the sentence of the petitioner, then a fine not less than Rs.50,000/- be imposed and the sentence may not be less than 3 months.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the present petitioner along with others, was found guilty of offence under

Section 498A/406 Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of Witchcraft Act by the trial court and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence only to the extent it related to Section 498A of Indian Penal code and the appeal was partly allowed. The learned lower appellate court has

also recorded that the brother and mother of the informant sold a pair of oxen and jewellery and fulfilled the dowry demand and this fact has been

corroborated by P.W. 3 when she has deposed that she sold all the jewellery and oxen to get Rs.45,000/- which was given to the appellant. The

learned lower appellate court has also recorded that the informant has stated that after the demand was met, the appellant started demanding more

and thereafter, she was driven away from the matrimonial home. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case and the fact that the

appellant is a lady (mother in law) and her present age is around 59 years and she has faced the criminal case right from the year 2004, this Court is

inclined to modify the sentence of the appellant by enhancing the fine amount and reducing the sentence. It is also found that the informant has

specifically stated before the learned court that she has been divorced and after divorce, she did not receive money and article, and if the money and

article would have been returned, no case would have been filed by the informant. Considering this aspect of the matter, the sentence is hereby

modified and reduced to two months with a fine of Rs.50,000/-. The fine amount should be deposited by the present petitioner by 28.02.2020 before

the learned court below and the amount so deposited before the learned court below is directed to be remitted to the informant of the case after due

identification. If the fine amount is not deposited by 28.02.2020, the petitioner would serve the sentence as ultimately awarded by the learned court

below and the bail bonds furnished by the petitioner will be immediately cancelled. The period for which the petitioner has already remained in custody

would be set off from the total period of two months.

Accordingly, this criminal revision is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid modification of sentence.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are dismissed as not pressed.

Let the lower court’s records be immediately sent back to the learned court below.

Let this order be communicated to the learned court below through FAX.