Jharkhand High Court
Punu Mondal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 April, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 128 of 2004
-------
1. Punu Mondal
2. Tustu Mondal ..... .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ..... ....Opposite Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Petitioner :Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, Adv.
For the Opposite Party :Mr. Tarun Kumar, APP
.........
04/07.04.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This revision application is directed against the
judgment dated 20.11.2003 passed by learned 3rd
Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Jamtara in Criminal
Appeal No.112 of 99/7 of 2003; whereby the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 13.12.1999 passed
by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class at Jamtara, in
G.R. No.287/91, T.R. No.70 of 99; whereby the petitioners
were convicted and petitioner No.1 sentenced to undergo
three months R.I. for the offence under Sections 323/34
IPC and petitioner No.2 sentenced to undergo three years
R.I. with a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under sections
326/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine the petitioner
No.2 shall be further liable to undergo R.I. for three
months; has been affirmed and the appeal filed by the
petitioners was dismissed.
3. The prosecution case in short is that on 15.8.91
she had gone to see her agriculture land at kanali Baihar
where paddy was grown, when she saw that the accused
persons damage the paddy field then the informant tried to
prevent them but the accused persons assaulted her.
On the basis of the fardbeyan Narayanpur P.S.
Case No.33 of 991 was registered and after investigation
police submitted charge-sheet. Accordingly, charge was
framed against the petitioners for which they pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried and finally they found guilty.
4. At the outset, Mr. S. Thakur, learned counsel for
the petitioners submits that the petitioners were not
habitual offender and the allegation is not serious in
nature. Now the petitioners are aged about 58 years and 68
years respectively and also remained in custody for 34
days; as such, he is confining his prayer only on the
question of sentence and since the petitioners are now an
aged persons; sending them back to jail at this stage even
for short period will hamper the entire family; as such the
sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.
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
petitioners 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 1991
and about 31 years have elapsed and the petitioners must
have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 31 years. It
is not stated that the petitioners have 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 also remained in custody for 34 days.
8. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion
that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the
petitioners/convicts back to prison; rather interest of
justice would be sufficed if the sentence is modified in lieu
of fine.
9. Thus, the sentence passed by the trial court and
upheld by the appellate court is, hereby, modified to the
extent that the petitioners are sentenced to undergo for the
period already undergone, subject to the payment of fine of
Rs. 5000/- and the same shall be paid by the petitioner
No.2.
10. It is made clear that petitioner No.2 shall pay the
aforesaid fine within a period of 4 months from today before
the court below, Jamtara; failing which he shall serve rest
of the sentence as ordered by the learned Trial Court.
11. With the aforesaid observations, directions and
modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision
application is disposed of.
12. The petitioners shall be discharged from the
liability of their bail bonds, subject to fulfillment of
aforesaid condition.
13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
court below and also to the petitioners through the officer-
in-charge of concerned police station.
14. Let the lower court record be sent to the court
concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Fahim/-
