The Orissa High court recently comprising of a bench of Justice D. Dash observed that Where the convict had undergone half of his sentence that was imposed on him, the court may upon its discretion reducing the quantum of sentence to the period already undergone by the convict, provided that such does not hamper in providing Justice. (Dhuleshwar @ Dhula Mohapatra Vs. State of Orissa)
The bench was dealing with an issue where the appellant filed an appeal, assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by sessions judge, Khudra at Bhubaneswar. The appellant faced the trial for the offence punishable under section 498-A/302/201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, ‘the IPC’) had been convicted for commission of offence under section 498-A of the IPC. The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.
Facts of the case
In the present case, the appellant had married Annapurna in the year 1981 and it was said that during the said marriage, cash, gold ornament, brass and bell metal utensils and other household articles had been given as dowry. Further after 6 to 7 months, the prosecution compelled Annapurna to bring one tv from her parents and for the fulfillment of the same, the prosecution left Annapurna at her parents’ place. Annapurna returned to her matrimonial house knowing that in her absence all her ornaments were sold by the accused. Thereafter she was also tortured and was not provided proper food. Failing to tolerate such a situation, Annapurna returned to her parental house.
It was also alleged that the accused later married another woman and begot Annapurna and their children. Annapurna initiated a proceeding claiming maintenance. Annapurna and her son were brought back to the matrimonial house which was objected to by the second wife, and then on 22.1.1993, the parents of Annapurna were informed that their daughter had died, after having tea. On suspicion of that, an FIR was lodged in the nearby police station and an investigation was initiated, upon which the accused with 5 other family members were placed for Trial for the commission of offence under section 498-A/302/201 read with section 34 IPC. The trial court held the accused guilty of commission of offence under section 498-Aof the IPC and, acquitted him of other charges. All other accused were also acquitted of other charges. Hence, the present Appeal is at the instance of the Appellant.
Read also : Investigating Officer fined ₹50,000 for non-compliance of HC order
Contention of the Parties
The counsel for the Appellant stated that the court erred in accepting the guilt upon the accused, as he stated that the evidence to establish the factum of cruelty that had been meted out at Annapurna were highly discrepant and that aspect had been stated by all the witnesses in a general manner without citing any specific instance. Further, the counsel also pointed out that the accused had covered half the sentence already and there prays to the court to reduce the quantum of sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant.
The Additional Government Advocate on the other hand submitted that the evidence of all the witnesses on the score was wholly consistent and was clear, cogent and acceptable and also stated the Trial Court had rightly answered the point that this accused/husband had tortured, harassed and subjected his wife Annapurna to cruelty.
Courts Observation & Judgment
The bench noted that the evidence on the record being taken together with the circumstances, as afore discussed, provide all the reasons and justifications to hold that the finding rendered by the Trial Court that Annapurna had been subjected to cruelty by this Accused, who happens to be her husband, is well in order. For the aforesaid, this Court is led to affirm the finding of guilt of the accused for commission of offence punishable under section 498-A of the IPC.
The bench taking note of the submission of the appellant remarked, “it is seen that there has been a lapse of about 28 years since the institution of the case and the accused by now is aged about 63 years. The record further reveals that he is arrested in the case on 29.3.1993 was finally released on bail by the order of this Court on 15.09.1993 which nearly covers half of the sentence imposed by the Trial Court. Taking an overall view of the matter, this Court feels inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant as to the modification of the sentence as imposed by the Trial Court i.e. by reducing the rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year to the period already undergone as that in the facts and circumstances would meet the ends of justice.
In the result, the judgment of conviction recorded against the Appellant for the commission of offence punishable under section 498-A IPC being maintained; he is sentenced to the period already undergone.”
The bench partly allowing the Application remarked, “The CRA thus stands allowed in part to the extent as indicated above with the modification of the sentence as aforesaid. The bail bonds executed by the accused shall stand discharged”
Read Judgment;
SOURCE ; /www.latestlaws.com/
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments