Jharkhand High Court
Sunil Lakra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 326 of 2020
With
I.A. No.2811 of 2020
....
Sunil Lakra .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Opp. Party
....
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
For the Petitioner : Md. Zaid Ahmed, Adv.
For the State : Mr. S.K.Srivastava, APP.
....
The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had
no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.
....
05/29.06.2021
1. The instant application has been filed against the order dated 15.03.2018
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Criminal Appeal No.48
of 2016, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
20.08.2016, whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under
Sections 409/ 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the court of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Simdega in connection with Simdega P.S. Case No.81 of 2010
corresponding to G.R. No.223 of 2010 (T.R. No.656 of 2016) and sentenced him to
undergo R.I. for 2 ½ years with a fine of Rs.3000/- for the offence under Section
409/34 of the IPC and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 ½ years with a fine of
Rs.3000/- for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC and in default of payment of
fine, further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two months.
2. At the very outset, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that he is confining his prayer only for the sentencing part. It has been
argued that considering the nature of allegation and the period of custody,
sentencing part may be modified and reduced to the period already undergone by
the petitioner. It has been further submitted that the petitioner has remained in
custody for more than two years. It has been further submitted that the petitioner is
ready and willing to pay the enhanced amount of fine, if so imposed.
3. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Considering the nature of allegation
and the age of the victim and the period of custody, this Court finds that in the
interest of justice, the period of sentence as imposed by the court below should be
reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner. Accordingly, the order
of sentence/ judgment dated 15.03.2018, passed by the court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Simdega in Criminal Appeal No.48 of 2016 is modified to the
extent that it is reduced to the period already undergone (i.e., about two years) by
the petitioner, with the condition that the petitioner shall deposit the enhanced
amount of fine of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) at the time of his release in the court
below.
5. However, the court below before issuing the release order will satisfy
itself regarding the fact that the petitioner has remained in custody for about two
years. If not, then no release order will be issued rather the matter will be reported
to this Court.
6. With the above modification of the sentence, the present criminal revision
and I.A. No. 2811 of 2020 stand disposed off.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Shahid/
