Jharkhand High Court
Vijay Kumar Mishra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 April, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1009 of 2003
-------
Vijay Kumar Mishra ..... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Smt. Sunita Devi ..... ....Opposite Parties
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Petitioner :Mr. R.C.P.Sah, Adv.
For the Opposite Party :APP
.........
12/07.04.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This revision application is directed against the
judgment dated 10.6.2003 passed by learned 1st Addl.
District & Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal
No.36 of 1995; whereby the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 1.5.1995 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, in C.P. Case No.78/93;
whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to
undergo two years S.I for the offence under Section 494 IPC
and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and he was further sentenced
to undergo S.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-
and directed to both the sentences run concurrently; has
been affirmed and the appeal filed by the petitioner was
dismissed.
3. The prosecution case in short is that on
19.4.1986 complainant/O.P.No.2 was married with the
petitioner according to Hindu rites and ritual. The relation
between the husband and wife remained cordial for some
time after the marriage and they were blessed with a son.
Thereafter, the petitioner along with his family members
started torturing the complainant for demand of
motorcycle, T.V. and cash fifteen thousand and on non-
fulfillment of demand all the accused persons beat her and
sent her to her parental home. It is also alleged in the
complaint petition that the O.P.No.2 has married with
another lady namely, Usha Devi.
4. At the outset, Mr. R.C.P.Sah, learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that now the petitioner is aged
person and also remained in custody for 311 days; as such,
he is confining his prayer only on the question of sentence
and since the petitioner is now aged person; sending him
back to jail at this stage even for short period will hamper
the entire family; as such the sentence may be modified for
the period already undergone.
5. Learned counsel for the State supported the
judgments and submits that there is no error in the finding
given by the courts below. As such, the conviction cannot
be set aside, however the sentence may be modified in lieu
of fine.
6. After going through the impugned judgment
including the lower court records and keeping in mind the
limited submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and also the scope of revision jurisdiction, I am
not inclined to interfere with the finding of the courts below
and as such the judgment 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 1993
and about 28 years have elapsed and the petitioner must
have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 28 years. It
is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the
privilege of bail. . Further, the incident does not reflect any
cruelty on the part of the petitioner or any mental depravity
and the petitioner remained in custody for 311 days almost
one year.
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 for the period
already undergone.
9. Thus, the sentence passed by the trial court and
upheld by the appellate court is, hereby, modified to the
extent that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the
period already undergone.
10. With the aforesaid observations, directions and
modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision
application is disposed of.
11. The petitioner shall be discharged from the
liability of his bail bonds.
12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
court below and also to the petitioner through the officer-
in-charge of concerned police station.
13. Let the lower court record be sent to the court
concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Fahim/-
