Babulal Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 1582 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              Cr. Revision No. 479 of 2004
                               ---------

      Babulal Mahto                                 ..... Petitioner
                             Versus
      1. The State of Jharkhand.
      2. Smt. Illayachi Devi      .....             Opposite Parties
                               ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, Advocate For the State : APP 04/Dated: 20th April, 2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. Though the notice was issued on the last occasion,

however, Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, learned Advocate submits that

he has filed the fresh Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner

and will assist the court.

3. This criminal revision application is directed against

the judgment entence dated 15.04.2004, passed by the

learned 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal

Appeal No. 123 of 1999; whereby the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated 28.08.99 passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, whereby the

petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Sections

323, 324, 326 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 6 months

R.I. under Section 323 of I.P.C, 3 years R.I. under Section 324

of I.P.C, and R.I. for 3 years under Section 326 I.P.C., and the

sentences have been ordered to run concurrently, has been

modified to sentence of 1 year S.I. under Section 324 of I.P.C.

and 6 months S.I. under Section 323 of I.P.C and ordered

both the sentences to run concurrently.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that on 28.10.1996 at

about 11'O clock in the day time the informant of the case

Ilayachi Devi along with her husband were fencing kitchen

garden of their house. Meanwhile Babulal Mahto and other

two persons came there and asked them to stop the fencing.

This led to altercation and Babulal Mahato inflicted injury on

the finger of the informant by sickle. Ilayachi Devi started

crying and the villagers gathered there and the accused

persons went away.

5. At the outset, Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, learned counsel for

the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not a habitual

offender. The petitioner has also undergone 157 days

imprisonment and now the petitioner is an aged person. As

such, he is confining his prayer only on the question of

sentence as the petitioner is an aged person and sending him

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.

6. Learned APP opposes the prayer of the petitioner and

submits that there is concurrent finding and there is no error

in the impugned judgments. As such, the conviction cannot

be set aside, however the sentence may be modified in lieu of

fine.

7. After going through the impugned judgments 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

with modification by the learned appellate court is, hereby,

sustained.

8. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent

from record that the incident is of the year 1996 and 25 years

have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors

of litigation for the last 25 years. The petitioner also remained

in custody for about 157 days and 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.

9. 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 in lieu of fine.

10. Thus, the sentence passed by the Court below is,

hereby, further modified to the extent that the petitioner is

sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone,

subject to the payment of fine of Rs. 5000/-.

11. It is made clear that the petitioner shall pay the

aforesaid fine of Rs.5000/- within a period of 4 months from

today before the court below, failing which he shall serve rest

of the sentence as ordered by the learned court below.

12. With the aforesaid observations, directions and

modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision

application stands disposed of.

13. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of

his bail bond, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.

14. 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.

15. Let the lower court record be sent to the court

concerned forthwith.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Amardeep/