Jharkhand High Court
Dinu Mian @ Din Mohammad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No.704 of 2020
---
Dinu Mian @ Din Mohammad ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Rakib Ansari ... ... Opposite Parties
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohit Agarwal, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar, A.P.P.
---
The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel
for the parties had no objections with it and submitted that the audio and
video qualities are good.
---
06/16.09.2021: The instant application has been filed against the order dated
27.07.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamtara in
Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamtara has been pleased to dismiss the
appeal and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 01.08.2019 passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Jamtara in P.C.R. Case No.325 of 2016, T.R. Case No.394 of
2019.
At the very outset, it has been submitted by the learned counsel
for the revisionist that the other co-accused had been given the benefit of
Probation of Offenders Act by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamtara
but the same has been denied to the present revisionist due to previous
convictions. It has also been submitted that there is land dispute between
the parties and due to which there is various litigation between them. It
has further been submitted that the incident is of the year 2016 and the
revisionist has suffered by facing trial for such a long period and he is in
custody since 09.09.2021.
Further, it has been submitted that there is no aggravating
circumstances and the petitioner is ready to make compensation under
Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. On the above facts, the prayer has been made
that the sentencing of imprisonment may be converted to the fine or
compensation.
Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and it has been
submitted that since there is previous convictions, and as such, the
petitioner does not deserve benefits under the Probation of Offenders
Act.
Having heard the parties and from perusal of the records, it
appears that the scuffle has taken place and the entire family members
have been made accused and the other accused has been given the
benefit of Probation of Offenders Act but the same has been denied to
the petitioner.
Considering the nature of allegation and relationship between
the parties and in the interest of justice, this Court finds that the
sentencing of compensation will serve the interest of justice.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.07.2020 is modified to the
extent that the imprisonment part is reduced to the period already under
gone with a further direction to pay Rs.5,000/- as a compensation to the
injured victim and in the default of payment of fine further to undergo
one month simple imprisonment.
The court below is directed to issue the release order
immediately after deposit of the compensation amount in the court
below.
With above modification, the criminal revision being Criminal
Revision No.704 of 2020 stands disposed of.
Pending I.A. if any, also stands allowed.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Amar/-
