IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 479 of 2004
---------
Babulal Mahto ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Smt. Illayachi Devi ..... Opposite Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, Advocate For the State : APP 04/Dated: 20th April, 2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.
2. Though the notice was issued on the last occasion, however, Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, learned Advocate submits that he has filed the fresh Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner and will assist the court.
3. This criminal revision application is directed against the judgment entence dated 15.04.2004, passed by the learned 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 1999; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.08.99 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Sections 323, 324, 326 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 6 months R.I. under Section 323 of I.P.C, 3 years R.I. under Section 324 of I.P.C, and R.I. for 3 years under Section 326 I.P.C., and the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently, has been modified to sentence of 1 year S.I. under Section 324 of I.P.C. and 6 months S.I. under Section 323 of I.P.C and ordered both the sentences to run concurrently.
-2-
4. The prosecution case in brief is that on 28.10.1996 at about 11'O clock in the day time the informant of the case Ilayachi Devi along with her husband were fencing kitchen garden of their house. Meanwhile Babulal Mahto and other two persons came there and asked them to stop the fencing. This led to altercation and Babulal Mahato inflicted injury on the finger of the informant by sickle. Ilayachi Devi started crying and the villagers gathered there and the accused persons went away.
5. At the outset, Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not a habitual offender. The petitioner has also undergone 157 days imprisonment and now the petitioner is an aged person. As such, he is confining his prayer only on the question of sentence as the petitioner is an aged person and sending him back to jail at this stage even for short period will hamper the entire family; as such the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.
6. Learned APP opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that there is concurrent finding and there is no error in the impugned judgments. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside, however the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.
7. After going through the impugned judgments including the lower court records and keeping in mind the limited -3- submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the scope of revision jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of the courts below and as such the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld with modification by the learned appellate court is, hereby, sustained.
8. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1996 and 25 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 25 years. The petitioner also remained in custody for about 157 days and it is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail. Further, the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part of the petitioner or any mental depravity.
9. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner/convict back to prison; rather interest of justice would be sufficed if the sentence is modified in lieu of fine.
10. Thus, the sentence passed by the Court below is, hereby, further modified to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone, subject to the payment of fine of Rs. 5000/-.
11. It is made clear that the petitioner shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.5000/- within a period of 4 months from today before the court below, failing which he shall serve rest -4- of the sentence as ordered by the learned court below.
12. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision application stands disposed of.
13. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bond, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.
14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below and also to the petitioner through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station.
15. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) Amardeep/