1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 636 of 2009
---------
1.Shivlal Singh.
2.Dhaneshwar Singh. ..... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand. ..... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shekhar Pd. Sinha, Adv.
For the State : Mr. B.Shastri, APP
---------
04/Dated: 22nd November, 2022
Pursuant to the order dated 20.09.2022 notices were issued to the petitioners. A service report has been received indicating therein that petitioner no. 1-namely- Shivlal Singh has died long before and the notice has been served upon the petitioner no.2.
2. In view of the aforesaid fact, the instant application is dismissed as abated against the petitioner no. 1-namely- Shivlal Singh.
3. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 11.06.2009, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Cr. Appeal No. 244 of 2006; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, in connection with Katras (Kapuria) P.S. Case No. 272 of 1996, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2955 of 1996 (T.R. No. 708 of 2006); whereby the petitioners were convicted under sections 147, 341, 323, 337, 353, 225, 427, 149 IPC and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 2 years for the offence under Section 147, 353, 225, 427 IPC and for 6 months for the offence under Sections 323, 337 IPC and S.I. for one month for the offence under Section 341 IPC and all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently has been affirmed and appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly confines his argument on the question of sentence on the ground that the instant case is of the year of 1996 and about 26 years have elapsed since then and the petitioner must have suffered the mental agony for ongoing litigation. He further submits that this is the only case filed against the petitioner no.2 and there is no other criminal antecedent against him. He further submits that the petitioner no.2 is a middle aged person and also remained in custody for about 21 days and has never misused the privilege of bail, as such some leniency may be granted by this Court and sentence may be modified to period already undergone.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the contention of the petitioner and submits that there is concurrent finding and as such, no interference is required though he fairly admits that there is no criminal antecedent of the petitioner no.2.
6. After going through the impugned judgments including the lower court records and keeping in mind the limited submissions of the learned counsel for the 3 petitioner and also the scope of revisional jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of the courts below and as such the judgments of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby, sustained.
7. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1996 and 26 years have elapsed and the petitioner no.2 must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 26 years. The petitioner no.2 also remained in custody for ten weeks and now he is middle aged person and sending him back to prison at this stage will hamper the entire family. Further, it is not stated that the petitioner no.2 has ever misused the privilege of bail. In addition, the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part of the petitioner no.2 or any mental depravity.
8. 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.
9. Thus, the sentence passed by the Court below is, hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioner no.2 is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone, subject to the payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/-.
10. It is made clear that the petitioner no.2 shall pay the 4 aforesaid fine of Rs. 5,000/- within a period of 4 months from today before the D.L.S.A, Dhanbad failing which he shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned court below.
11. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence/fine only, the instant criminal revision application stands disposed of.
12. The petitioner no.2 shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bond subject to fulfilment of aforesaid condition.
13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the courts below and Secretary DLSA, Dhanbad and also to the petitioner no.2 through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station.
14. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) Amardeep/