Suren Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 5112 Jhar

                                              1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
          Cr. Revision No. 596 of 2007
                          ---------

1.Suren Singh.

     2.Kalyan Khamrai                                     ..... Petitioners
                           Versus
     The State of Jharkhand.                      .....    Opposite Party
                                      ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioners : Mr. J.N.Upadhyay., Adv.

For the State : Ms. Leena Mukherjee, APP

---------

05/Dated: 16th December, 2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This revision application is directed against the judgment

dated 17th July, 2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Ghatsial, East Singhbhum, in Cr. Appeal No. 39 of 2000;

whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

17.01.2000 passed by learned S.D.J.M, Ghatsila, in G.R. Case No.

204 of 1997 ( T.R.No. 177 of 1999/ 637 of 2000); whereby the

petitioners were convicted under section 411 IPC and sentenced to

undergo R.I. for 1 year has been affirmed and appeal filed by the

petitioner was dismissed.

3. 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 1997 and about 25 years have elapsed

since then and the petitioners must 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 a habitual

offender and petitioner nos. 1 and 2 remained in custody for about

323 & 302 days respectively, as such some leniency may be

granted by this Court and sentence may be modified to period

already undergone.

4. Learned Addl. P.P opposes the contention of the petitioners

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

interference is required.

5. 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.

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

from record that the incident is of the year 1997 and 25 years have

elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of

litigation for the last 25 years. The petitioner nos. 1 and 2

remained in custody for about 323 & 302 days respectively, and

now they are middle 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.

7. 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 in lieu of fine.

8. Thus, the sentence passed by the Court below is, hereby,

modified to the extent that the petitioners are sentenced to undergo

for the period already undergone, subject to the payment of fine of

Rs. 7,500/- each.

9. It is made clear that the petitioners shall pay the aforesaid

fine of Rs. 7,500/- each within a period of 4 months from today

before the D.L.S.A, Ghatsila, East Singhbhum failing which they

shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned court

below.

10. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification

in sentence/fine only, the instant criminal revision application

stands disposed of.

11. The petitioners shall be discharged from the liability of their

bail bonds subject to fulfilment of aforesaid condition.

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

below and Secretary DLSA, Ghatsila, East Singhbhum and also to

the petitioners 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/