Ashok Prasad vs The State Of Bihar on 17 July, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Revision No.629 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- WESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH)

1. Ashok Prasad son of Rajendra Prasad, Resident of Village- Samhauta, P.S.-
Sathi, District- West Champaran.

…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar

…. …. Respondent/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sandeep Kumar
Mr. Shivjee Sisngh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN
SINGH

JUDGMENT AND ORDER
ORAL

Date: 17-07-2017

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and

learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

2. The petitioner stood convicted of the offence

punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code at a

trial before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate III,

Bettiah, West Champaran, arising out of Complaint Case No.

2963C of 2003 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment

for a period of three years with fine of Rs. 10,000/-.

3. The said conviction, recorded by the learned

Trial Court and sentence imposed by it, has been affirmed by

learned Sessions Judge, West Champaran, at Bettiah, in

Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2016, by judgment and order, dated

16.02.2017.

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.629 of 2017 dt.17-07-2017

2/3

4. The Appellate Court’s judgment and order, dated

16.02.2017, is being assailed in the present criminal revision

application, by the petitioner, who is the husband. The

complainant, i.e. the petitioner’s wife, is no more. For her

death, a case has been registered against the petitioner for

offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal

Code, in which the trial is still pending.

5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner has submitted that father of the deceased, in course

of time, when he realized that the petitioner was being

wrongly prosecuted, wanted to get the matter compromised

before the learned Appellate Court, but the offence being non-

compoundable, the learned Appellate Court refused to accept

the petition filed on behalf of the father of the deceased for

compromising the case, under Section 498A of the Indian

Penal Code.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has, further,

submitted that there being no dispute that the case of the

prosecution has been supported by the witnesses at the trial,

leading to petitioner’s conviction and there being concurrent

findings recorded by the Courts below of conviction, the

judgments cannot be assailed on the ground of perversity. He

has, however, submitted that there being mitigating

circumstances available on record, the sentence of

imprisonment of three years is excessive and should be
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.629 of 2017 dt.17-07-2017

3/3

reduced to a reasonable period. It is also submitted that the

only child, born out of the marriage, is living with the

petitioner.

7. In view of what has been submitted on behalf of

the petitioner, as noted above, I find it to be fit case where the

sentence, which has been imposed by the learned Trial Court

and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, should be

reduced.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has informed

that the petitioner has remained in custody for more than six

months.

9. In that view of the matter, this revision

application is disposed of by modifying the order of sentence

from imprisonment for a period of three years to the

imprisonment for a period of six months.

10. This application stands disposed of.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.)

Prabhakar Anand/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 22-07-2017
Transmission Date 22-07-2017

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *