Man Mohan Prasad Mehta Son Of Sri ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4622 Jhar

                                    1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                         Cr. Revision No. 1021 of 2012

         Man Mohan Prasad Mehta son of Sri Ayodhya Prasad Mehta,
         Resident of Village Kutipisi, P.O. Padma, P.S. Barhi, Outpost Padma,
         District- Hazaribagh         ...     ...     ...    Petitioner
                               Versus
         The State of Jharkhand                   ...    ...     Opp. Party
                                 ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. B.V. Kumar, Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Mahua Palit, A.P.P.

8/06.12.2021

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. B.V. Kumar along with Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha submits that they have taken instructions from their client and have been instructed that the petitioner is ready to deposit the compensation amount as directed by the learned lower appellate court within a period of six month from the date of the order that may be passed by this court. He submits that the petitioner was only 20 years of age on the date of commission of offence and he has remained in custody during trial for a period of 6 months 11 days and during the pendency of this revision application for about 15 days and thus the total period of custody of the petitioner is for a period of about 7 months. The learned counsel submits that it appears that the petitioner along with the co-accused, who was declared as juvenile, have been alleged to have committed offence at tender age. Considering the fact that offence was committed as back as in the year 2004 and 17 years have elapsed from the date of offence and the petitioner has remained in custody for quite some time, some sympathetic view may be taken and the sentence may be modified to the period already undergone by him in judicial custody and appropriate direction for payment of compensation amount may be issued.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand has submitted that there are concurrent findings against the petitioner and so far as the sentence is concerned, it is for the court to take an appropriate call in the matter of sentencing. It further appears from the record that the petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 406 as well as Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, but the learned appellate court acquitted the petitioner for offence under Section 406 IPC and sustained the conviction for offence under Section 420 IPC and also directed the petitioner to pay victim compensation amounting to Rs. Two lacs fifty-two thousand.

3. Arguments concluded.

4. Post this case on 07.12.2021 for dictation of judgment.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit/