Banas Murmu Alias Banaw Murmu vs State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3260 Jhar

                                  1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  Cr. Revision No. 568 of 2006
1. Banas Murmu alias Banaw Murmu
2. Bharat Murmu                                    ..... Petitioners
                             Versus
State of Jharkhand                            ..... Opposite Party
                             ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioners    : Mr. K.S. Nanda, Advocate
                         Mr. Anshuman Deo, Advocate
For the State          : Mr. P.D. Agarwal, Spl. PP
                             --------
04/ 18.08.2022         Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant criminal revision application is directed

against the judgment dated 22.05.2006, passed by learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Ghatsila,

whereby the Cr. Appeal No. 144 of 1997, preferred by the

petitioners has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 13.08.1997 in G.R. No. 504 of 1995,

corresponding to T.R. No. 188 of 1997, passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Ghatsila, whereby the petitioners were

convicted under Sections 323/ 34, 341 & 342 IPC and sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 323 of

the Indian Penal Code, has been affirmed.

3. The prosecution case in brief is based upon the

fardbeyan of the informant-Anil Kumar Giri, 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 both the

petitioners remained in custody for about 73 days and petitioner

Nos. 1 & 2 are aged about 73 and 50 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 petitioners 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 1995 and 27 years have

elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of

litigation for the last 27 years. Further, both the petitioners

remained in custody for about 73 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.

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/