KUNTI KUMARI VS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

KUNTI KUMARI VS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND


Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले


Non­Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s).590 OF 2022
(arising out of SLP (CRL.) No(s). 1406 of 2017)
KUNTI KUMARI        ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND                ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
Leave granted.
2. The complainant Amita Tudu (PW-7), as per the written
report at the relevant time, was the President of Village
Education Committee, Middle School, Kora Para. Budget
meeting for the training for 2008-2009 was scheduled for
18.12.2007 and after the meeting, meal packets were to be
distributed to those who were participating in the budget
meeting. Around 01:30 PM on the said date, the complainant
1
was about to hand over the meal packet to the appellant. Then,
all of a sudden, the appellant snatched the meal packet from
complainant hands, abused her with respect to her community
and also uttered that she belonged to a low caste which
relishes meat of pig and cow and even a dog will not eat from
her hands and that how dare she give her the packet and also
called her by her tribal name ‘Santhal’ and left the school
premises. The complainant further stated that in this manner
she had been abused and insulted in the presence of many
teachers and trainees which caused her mental harassment.
The said complaint was registered as FIR No.05 of 2007, Police
Station Jamtara, District Jamtara, under Section 504 IPC and
Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19891
. After investigation, a
charge sheet was submitted, cognizance taken by the special
Court and the trial was conducted.
3. The appellant was convicted under Section 504 IPC and
Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST Act by the trial court vide judgment
dated 28.08.2010 and was sentenced to four months simple
imprisonment under Section 504 IPC and six months simple
1 In short “the SC/ST Act”
2
imprisonment under Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST Act. The
criminal appeal filed by the appellant was partly allowed by the
High Court vide judgment dated 09.12.2016. The High Court
set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 3(i)(x) of
the SC/ST Act. It, however, upheld the conviction under Section
504 IPC and reduced the sentence to 15 days simple
imprisonment.
4. The finding of conviction under Section 504 IPC has been
concurrently recorded by the Trial Court as also by the High
Court in appeal based upon appreciation of the evidence led by
the prosecution. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined
to enter into appreciation of evidence at this stage and
accordingly confirm the conviction. However, insofar as the
sentence is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the appellant may be extended the benefit of
the provisions contained in the Probation of Offenders Act,
19582
. Accordingly, the appeal is being considered on the
above issue of sentence.
5. Section 3 of the 1958 Act confers power upon the court to
release certain offenders after admonition when a person is
2 In short “1958 Act”
3
found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under
Section 379 or Section 380 or Section 381 or Section 404 or
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code or any offence
punishable with imprisonment for not more than two
years, or with fine, or with both, under the Indian Penal
Code or any other law, and there is no previous conviction
proved against such offender. In the present case, the
conviction is under Section 504 IPC where the maximum
sentence provided is two years. There is no previous conviction
of the appellant. Further, Section 11 of 1958 Act provides that
an order under this Act may be made by any court empowered
to try and sentence the offender to imprisonment and also by
the High Court or any other court when the case comes before
it on appeal or in revision. Thus, this Court under the 1958 Act
itself can pass an order at this stage. (emphasis ours)
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we
deem it appropriate that the appellant may be released instead
of carrying out the sentence after due admonition. Accordingly,
agreeing with the conviction under Section 504 IPC, the
appellant is directed to be released after admonition under
4
Section 3 of the 1958 Act. To that extent the sentence is
modified and the appeal is allowed.
7. It may be mentioned here that under the orders of this
Court dated 06.07.2021, the appellant has deposited
Rs.10,000/- with the Registry as per the Office Report dated
24.03.2022. It is further to be noted that earlier this Court vide
order dated 10.02.2020 had directed the appellant to pay a
sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant but no proof of payment
of the said amount was filed by the appellant as such the
subsequent order was passed on 05.07.2021 to deposit the said
amount with the registry of this Court. The said amount was for
the benefit of the complainant. We accordingly direct the
registry to transfer the said amount to the complainant after
getting necessary details of the complainant.
…………..........................J.
[S. ABDUL NAZEER]
………….........................J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
NEW DELHI
APRIL 08, 2022. 
5

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर