Jharkhand High Court
Praveen Kumar @ Praveen Kumar ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 April, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 131 of 2004
-------
Praveen Kumar @ Praveen Kumar Dubey
..... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ..... ....Opposite Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Petitioner :Mr. S.Thakur, Adv.
For the Opposite Party :APP
.........
04/07.04.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This revision application is directed against the
judgment dated 24.1.2004 passed by learned Sessions
Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No.92 of 2003; whereby
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
20.09.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Bokaro, in G.R. No.390/02, T.R. No.559 of 2003; whereby
the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo
Three years R.I for the offence under Section 377/511 IPC;
has been affirmed and the appeal filed by the petitioner was
dismissed.
3. The prosecution case in short is that on
23.4.2002 informant's nephew, namely, Sawan Kumar aged
about 8 years had gone to purchase exercise book from
nearby shop and while he was returning petitioner caught
hold him and was trying to commit some unnatural offence
with Sawan Kumar. On hearing scream, the informant
along with other came there and the accused on seeing
them fled away from there.
On the basis of the written report Sector IV
P.S.Case No.49/02 was registered and after investigation
police submitted charge-sheet. Accordingly, charge was
framed against the petitioner for which he pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. At the outset, Mr. S. Thakur, learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that now the petitioner is aged about
42 years and also remained in custody for 681 days; as
such, he is confining his prayer only on the question of
sentence and since the petitioner is now middle aged
person; sending him back to jail at this stage even for short
period will hamper the entire family as well as his carrier;
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 2002
and about 20 years have elapsed and the petitioner must
have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 20 years. It
is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the
privilege of bail. Further, the petitioner remained in custody
for 681 days almost two years.
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/-
