Jharkhand High Court
Samaul Sk vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr. ...... ... on 7 October, 2020
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No.1060 of 2014
Samaul SK ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Anr. ...... Opposite Parties
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv.
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
09/07.10.2020 Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned judgments has submitted that the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 498 A of Indian Penal Code and the Exhibit A which was relating to Khula talak, executed on 22.08.2001, has not been properly considered and admittedly the date of alleged incident in the present case much after that date.
4. Learned counsel submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, the date of marriage is 08.02.2000 based on the decision of Panchayat as the informant was said to have illicit relationship with the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the complaint was filed after five years of divorce i.e., on 12.06.2006. Learned counsel has also submitted that the present offence is the first offence of the petitioner and the learned court below has not properly considered the provision of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and accordingly, without prejudice to the submission on merit, this is fit case where the petitioner should be released upon furnishing bond under the provision of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
25. Learned counsel for the opposite party State has submitted that the learned court below has meticulously considered the evidence including Exhibit A in connection with the claim of the petitioner that he had divorced the informant on 22.08.2001 and has rejected the plea of divorce by a speaking order and has further submitted that there has been a second child of the parties after 22.08.2001. He has also submitted that the learned court below has also considered Exhibit 1 which is of the year 2005 i.e., the Kabil Nama. He has submitted that there are consistent findings of the learned courts below and accordingly, there is no ground for interference in revisional jurisdiction. He has also submitted that the provision of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 has been considered by the learned trial court and the learned trial court has refused to give that benefit to the petitioner by passing a well-reasoned order of sentence which has been upheld by the appellate court.
6. Arguments are concluded.
7. Post this case on 15th October, 2020 for judgment.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav/