Jatadhari Mondal vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3256 Jhar

                                 1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  Cr. Revision No. 1132 of 2004
1. Jatadhari Mondal
2. Rashdhari Mondal
3. Banshidhar Mondal @ Banshi Mondal               ..... Petitioners
                             Versus
The State of Jharkhand                        ..... Opposite Party
                             ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioners    : Mr. K.K. Mishra, Advocate
For the State          : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, APP
                             --------
06/ 18.08.2022         Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant criminal revision application is directed

against the judgment dated 03.09.2004, passed by the learned 3rd

Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jamtara, whereby the

Cr. Appeal No. 19 of 2003/ 8 of 2004, preferred by the petitioners

has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 26.07.2003 in G.R. No. 266 of 1993, corresponding

to T.R. No. 318 of 2003, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional

Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara, whereby the petitioners were

convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six

months each under Sections 323 and 448/34 of the Indian Penal

Code, has been affirmed.

3. The prosecution case in brief is based upon the

fardbeyan of the informant-Bhagwati Mandalain, for which FIR

has been lodged against the petitioners. After investigation, police

has submitted chargesheet and cognizance has been taken against

the petitioners; for which the petitioners pleaded not guilty and

claimed to be tried. After trial, the petitioners were found guilty

for the offences and they were convicted and their appeal was

also rejected by the learned appellate court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners confines his

argument on the question of sentence and submits that the

petitioners remained in custody for about 59 days and Petitioner

Nos. 1, 2 & 3 are aged about 60, 59 and 49 years, respectively and

during entire period of bail, they 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 parties 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 1993 and 29 years have

elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of

litigation for the last 29 years. Further, petitioners remained in

custody for about 59 days and during entire period of bail they

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 petitioners back

to prison and interest of justice would be sufficed by modifying

the sentence 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

petitioners are sentenced to undergo for the period already

undergone.

10. With the aforesaid observation and modification in

sentence only, the instant criminal revision application stands

disposed of.

11. The petitioners shall be discharged from the liability of

their bail bonds.

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

court below.

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

concerned forthwith.

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

Pramanik/