2026:JHHC:10527 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1527 of 2023 ------ Koley Oraon @ Koleya Oraon, aged about 60 years, S/o Late Moneya Oraon @ Muniya Oraon, R/o Village – Tan, P.O. – Jingi, P.S. – Kuru, District – Lohardaga. .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Smt. Tara Devi, W/o Koley Oraon, R/o Taan, P.O. & P.S.- Kuru, District - Lohardaga. .... .... Opp. Parties ------ Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate Mr. Tarun Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P. ------ JUDGMENT Dated- 13.04.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State. 2. The present criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.09.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Lohardaga in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed, affirming the judgment and order dated 12.02.2014 passed by learned C.J.M., Lohardaga in G.R. No. 409 of 2011, by which the petitioner has been held guilty for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation. 2026:JHHC:10527 FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The factual matrix of the case giving rise to this revision is that informant Tara Devi was married with the petitioner in the year 1982 according to scheduled tribe (Sarna) rites and rituals and after marriage, she went to her matrimonial home, where both of them resided as wife and husband for a period of 5-6 years and out of said wedlock, a girl child namely, Savita was born in the year 1987 and son namely, Govind Oraon was born in the year 1988. It is alleged that in the year 1987 petitioner got employment in CMPDI, Ranchi and started living in Ranchi and whenever on leave petitioner visited his village, he treated the informant with cruelty and also assaulted her and told that he is entangled with another lady at Ranchi and since then the informant is residing at her matrimonial home till date. Neither the petitioner has visited his home nor maintaining his family. Accordingly, Lohardaga (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 10 of 2011 was registered for the offence under Section 498A of I.P.C. 4. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C., accordingly learned court took cognizance and the charge has been framed in this same offence, in which petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. After conclusion of trial, petitioner was held guilty for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and sentenced, as stated above. 2026:JHHC:10527 6. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence of petitioner was challenged in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2014 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Lohardaga, which was heard and disposed of vide judgment dated 09.09.2016, whereby the conviction and sentence of the petitioner was upheld and confirmed and appeal was dismissed, which has been assailed in this revision. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, without touching the merits of the judgment, has confined himself to the point of quantum of sentence and submitted that both the parties were married in the year 1982 and now 44 years has been elapsed, but unfortunately, the marriage between the parties has miserably failed. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 498(A) of the I.P.C. and out of the aforesaid substantive imprisonment, the petitioner has already undergone more than 1½ years in custody during trial and during pendency of appeal and revision. There is no chance of rehabilitation or restitution of conjugal life between the parties. Further imprisonment of the petitioner would yield no useful purpose as a measure of deterrent. Therefore, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to award the petitioner substantive imprisonment already undergone by him instead of two years rigorous imprisonment awarded by the learned trial court and confirmed by the learned appellate court. 8. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and 2026:JHHC:10527 submitted that the petitioner has been held guilty for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years. He has never made available himself for the informant (wife) after getting employment in CMPDI, Ranchi, who is suffering for her own misfortune, therefore, petitioner does not deserve any leniency in the order of sentence. 9. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the appellate court. 10. It appears that there is concurrent finding of both the courts below that the prosecution has been able to conclusively prove the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. The finding of fact of the court below appears to be correct, legal and proper, requiring no interference on merits by way of this revision. 11. So far sentence awarded to the petitioner is concerned, admittedly out of two years rigorous imprisonment, he has sustained substantial part of the imprisonment to the extent of 1½ years during pendency of this case. 12. It appears that the date of alleged occurrence was of the year 1988 onwards and the FIR was instituted in the year 2011 and more than 15 years has been passed from the alleged FIR. The petitioner has sustained agony of trial for the aforesaid period and also served sentence about one year and six months. 2026:JHHC:10527 13. Under the aforementioned circumstances, in the interest of justice, the imprisonment already undergone by petitioner appears to be sufficient punishment for the offence committed by him. 14. In view of above, this revision is dismissed on merits, but with modification in sentence to the extent mentioned above i.e. petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. 15. Petitioner is on bail. As such, he shall be discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties shall also be discharged. 16. Pending I.A., if any stands closed. 17. Let the copy of this order be sent to the concerned court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 13/04/2026 Sunil/-NAFR Uploaded on 20/04/2026