Hira Lal Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3253 Jhar

                                 1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  Cr. Revision No. 1092 of 2004
Hira Lal Mahto                                     ..... Petitioner
                             Versus
The State of Jharkhand                        ..... Opposite Party
                             ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioner     : Mr. Nehru Mahto, Advocate
For the State          : Mr. Jitendra Mahto, APP
                             --------
05/ 18.08.2022         Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant criminal revision application is directed

against the judgment dated 20.09.2004, passed by learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.8, Hazaribagh,

whereby the Cr. Appeal No. 94 of 2003, preferred by the petitioner

has been partly allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 21.08.2003 in G.R. No. 951 of 1999 corresponding

to T.R. No. 213 of 2003, passed by the learned S.D.J.M,

Hazaribagh, whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 498A

of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo six months rigorous

imprisonment under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has

been modified by setting aside conviction under Section 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act while confirming the conviction and order

of sentence under Section 498 A of the IPC.

3. The prosecution case in brief is based upon the written

complaint petition of the informant-Pandry Devi made before the

learned C.J.M, for which learned C.J.M directed for institution of

the case and investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal

Procedure Code. Accordingly, the case was registered against the

petitioner and after investigation, police has submitted chargesheet

and cognizance has been taken against the petitioner; for which the

petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After trial, the

petitioner was found guilty for the offences and he was convicted

under Section 498A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act

however, his appeal was partly allowed by the learned appellate

court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his argument

on the question of sentence and submits that the petitioners

remained in custody for about 216 days and he is aged about 49

years and during entire period of bail, he never misused the

privilege of bail, as such the sentence may be modified.

5. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment

and submits that there is no error in the findings given by the Courts

below. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and

after going through the impugned judgments including the lower

courts records and keeping in mind the limited submissions of the

learned counsel for the petitioner and also the scope of revisional

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. So far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from

record that the incident is of the year 1999 and 23 years have

elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation

for the last 23 years. Further, petitioner remained in custody for

about 216 days and during entire period of bail he never misused

the privilege of bail.

8. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no

fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner back to

prison and interest of justice would be sufficed by modifying the

sentence 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

petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone

subject to payment of fine of Rs.7,500/-. The amount shall be

deposited before the Secretary D.L.S.A, Hazaribagh within four

months from today.

10. With the aforesaid observation, direction and

modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision

application stands disposed of.

11. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of

his bail bonds, subject to payment of fine of Rs.7,500/-.

12. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the courts

below, Secretary DLSA, Hazaribagh and also to the petitioner

through officer-in-charge of concerned police station.

13. Let the lower court record be sent back to the court

concerned forthwith.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Pramanik/