Sukh Lal Hansda vs State Of Jharkhand

The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 09.02.2011 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Ghatsila whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner being Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 2010 has been dismissed. The trial court in connection with G. R. Case No. 93/07 (T. R. No. 300/10) convicted the petitioner for offence committed under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years.

The prosecution case in brief is that marriage of victim-Singo Hansda has been solemnized with accused Sukh Lal Hansda on 16th May, 2004 according to Hindu rites and customs. It is further alleged that in the marriage, her father gave her ornaments of gold and silver and also Rs. 20,000/- cash to the accused. After the marriage, she went to her sasural but just after a week, accused persons started demanding of Rs.50,000/- and she has been insisted to ask this amount from her father. It is also alleged that her food was also curtailed and all of them subjected her to cruelty. Her husband used to assault her on abetment of other accused persons. Anyhow she tolerated the cruelty of the accused persons for two years but when it becomes unbearable, she came to her parent's house and reported the matter to Baharagora Police Station. But her case was not registered by the police then she filed a complaint petition before the court which was referred to the concerned police station as per section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and formal FIR has been registered against the accused persons under sections 498A, 494, 323 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and also section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the 3 accused persons including the petitioner for the offence under Section 498A/34 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and additional charge was also framed against the present petitioner under Section 494/34 IPC. After conclusion of trial, the trial court acquitted all the accused persons except the petitioner herein and convicted him under Section 498A of IPC and was sentenced as aforesaid.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the District & Sessions Judge, Ghatsila wherein the learned appellate court without interfering with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court concurred with the order in totality and dismissed the appeal on merit.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that no offence is made out under Section 498A IPC. On the very same allegation and evidence, on the one hand, the learned trial court has acquitted other accused persons whereas the petitioner has been convicted. He lastly concluded that even assuming the case to be true against the petitioner, in the interest of justice, it is desirable that he may be granted relief by this Court by modifying the sentence in lieu of compensation.

Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that if the petitioner is ready to pay compensation then the sentence may be modified, so that the victim-wife may be granted some monetary benefit.

Heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusing the material available on records and keeping in mind the limited scope of the revisional jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court and as such the same is confirmed.

So far as sentence is concerned, it has been brought on record that the petitioner has remained in custody for about 7 months and the case is also pending since 2007 and as such, the petitioner must have suffered with the rigors of litigation for more than 10 years and also remained in custody for considerable time. In this way, I find that it is expedient in the interest of justice that the sentence may be modified in lieu of compensation to be paid to the victim-wife. As such in the interest of justice, the sentence already undergone will suffice for the ends of justice for the alleged offence. Thus, the sentence passed by the learned trial Court and concurred by the learned appellate Court is hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone.

However, the aforesaid part of the order is subject to the condition that the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as fine which shall be paid as compensation to the victim-wife. The aforesaid amount must be paid within a period of 3 months from today before the learned trial court who shall pay the aforesaid amount to the victim-informant namely, Singo Hansda after doing the formalities, failing which, the petitioner shall serve rest sentence as directed by the learned trial court.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant revision application is disposed of and the petitioner is discharged from the liability of the bail bonds.

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