Bhola Bauri vs State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 5111 Jhar

                                                   1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
          Cr. Revision No. 589 of 2007
                               ---------

1. Bhola Bauri.

2. Baijyanti Bauri.

     3. Dinbandhu Bauri.                                ..... Petitioners
                                           Versus
      State of Jharkhand.                       .....    Opposite Party
                   ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Niladri Shekhar Mukherjee, Adv. For the State : Mr. Rajmeesh Vardhan, APP

---------

04/Dated: 16th December, 2022 Pursuant to the order dated 25.08.2022 notices were

issued to the petitioners. A service report has been received

indicating therein that petitioner no. 2, namely- Baijyanti Bauri

has died and the notices have been served upon petitioner nos.1

and 3.

2. In view of the aforesaid fact, the instant application is

dismissed as abated against the petitioner no. 2, namely-

Baijyanti Bauri.

3. This revision application is directed against the judgment

dated 07.04.2007, passed by learned 6th Additional Sessions

Judge, Dhanbad, in Cr. Appeal No. 173 of 2005; whereby the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.08.2005

passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, in

C.P. Case No. 809 of 2004 (T.R. No. 1246 of 2005) ; whereby the

petitioners were convicted under sections 323 and 498 A IPC

and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 4 months under section 323

IPC and 12 months under section 498 A IPC; has been affirmed

and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly confines his

argument on the question of sentence on the ground that the

instant case is of the year of 2004 and about 18 years have

elapsed since then and the petitioners have suffered the mental

agony for ongoing litigation. He further submits that the

petitioners have never misused the privilege of bail and they are

not habitual offender and the petitioner nos. 1 and 3 remained

in custody for about 336 and 40 days respectively, and now

surviving petitioners are aged person; as such some leniency

may be granted by this Court and sentence may be modified to

period already undergone.

5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the contention of the petitioners

and submits that there is concurrent finding and as such, no

interference is required.

6. After going through the impugned judgments 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 judgments

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 2004 and 18 years

have elapsed and the petitioners must has suffered the rigors of

litigation for the last 18 years. The petitioner no. 1 and 3

remained in custody for about 336 and 40 days respectively

days, and they are aged persons and sending them back to

prison at this stage will hamper their entire family. Further, it is

not stated that the petitioners have ever misused the privilege of

bail. In addition, the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the

part of the petitioners or any mental depravity.

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 to period already

undergone.

9. Thus, the sentence passed by the learned trial Court and

upheld by the learned appellate Court is hereby modified to the

extent that the petitioners are sentenced to undergo for the

period already undergone.

10. With the aforesaid modification in sentence only, the

instant criminal revision application stands disposed of.

11. The petitioner nos. 1 and 3 shall be discharged from the

liability of their bail bonds.

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

below and also to the petitioner nos. 1 and 3 through the officer-

in-charge of concerned police station.

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

forthwith.

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

Amardeep/