Gopal Krishan Agrawala @ Pappu Son ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4413 Jhar

                                     1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                          Cr. Revision No. 560 of 2003

         Gopal Krishan Agrawala @ Pappu son of Sri Ram Bharat Agrawala,
         resident of Chhatatand Bazar, P.S. Kendua District-Dhanbad
                                    ...      ...    ...    Petitioner
                               Versus
         The State of Jharkhand            ...    ...    Opp. Party
                                ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P.

6/25.11.2021

1. Heard Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his argument on the point of sentence. He has submitted that the incident is of the year 1982 and 39 years have elapsed from the date of incident. The petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 3(a) of the R.P. (U.P.) Act and present offence is the first offence of the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody for a period from the date of surrender on 21.01.1983 and thereafter he was released on bail by the learned trial court on 24.02.1983 and during the pendency of the revision also, he has remained in custody for a period of one month. Learned counsel submits that considering the fact that more than 39 years have elapsed and the present age of the petitioner is more than 59 years, sentence of the petitioner be modified to fine amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this court in Cr. Revision No. 183 of 2012 dated 19.07.2021 to submit that it is open to the court to punish the convict with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years or with fine or with both. He submits that there is an option with this court to punish by imposing fine only. Learned counsel submits that considering the facts and circumstances of this

case fine amount may be imposed instead of sending the petitioner to jail after a long lapse of time.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned court below and the sentence as well as the conviction may be upheld. However, he submits that in case this court is inclined to modify the sentence, the fine amount may not be less than 25,000/-.

4. Arguments concluded.

5. Post this case for judgment on 29.11.2021.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit/