Jharkhand High Court
Tikait Rai vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 February, 2022
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.76 of 2021
With
I.A. No.854 of 2022
1. Tikait Rai
2. Ratan Rai
3. Ghuran Rai
4. Vinay Rai @ Binay Rai
5. Uday Rai ...... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opp. Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Md. Hatim, A.P.P
---------
The matter was taken up through Video
Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no
objection with it and submitted that the audio and video
qualities are good.
---------
nd
08/Dated: 22 February, 2022
1. The present revision application has been filed against
the judgment dated 20.01.2020, passed by the court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge - V, Deoghar in Criminal
Appeal No.89 of 2017, affirming the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 14.12.2017, passed by the court
of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhupur in G.R.
Case No.409 of 2010, arising out of Palajori P.S. Case No.93 of
2010, whereby the petitioners have been convicted for the
offence under Section 323and 341 of the I.P.C and sentenced
to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence
under Section 323 of the I.P.C and S.I for one month for the
offence under Section 341 of the IPC with fine of Rs.500/-
each and in default thereof, to further undergo S.I for one
month.
2. It has been alleged that there was quarrel between the
parties over a piece of land. In order to substantiate the
prosecution story, altogether five witnesses have been
examined and after evaluating the same, the revisionists have
been convicted for the offence under Section 323 and 341 of
the I.P.C and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for
one year for the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C and S.I
for one month for the offence under Section 341 of the IPC
with fine of Rs.5,00/- each and in default thereof, to further
undergo S.I for one month. The appellate court has upheld
the order of conviction as well as punishment.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has confined the
prayer to the sentencing part and it has been submitted that
this is first incident and as such they should have been given
the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. Further, referring to
the nature of dispute and the nature of injuries and the fact
that the incident is of dated 03.09.2010, it has been
submitted that the revisionists have suffered a lot. The
revisionist Nos.1, 3 and 4 are in custody since 20.01.2022 and
petitioner Nos.2 and 5 are in custody since 24.01.2022. On
the above facts, prayer has been made for modification of the
sentencing part.
4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P has supported the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that
there was fight between the parties over a piece of land and
the parties are neighbours. The revisionists have already
suffered for more than ten years long litigation period. They
have remained in custody for about a month.
6. Considering the fact that there is no previous conviction
of the revisionists and the nature of injury which is simple in
nature, and in the interest of justice, the period of sentence,
as imposed by the court below, is reduced to the period
already undergone by the revisionists.
Accordingly, the order dated 20.01.2020, passed by the
court of learned Additional Sessions Judge - V, Deoghar in
Criminal Appeal No.89 of 2017, is modified to the extent that
it is reduced to the period already undergone by the
petitioners. However, the fine amount, as imposed by the
court below, is enhanced from Rs.500/- each to Rs.1,000/-
each, which will be deposited in the court below, failing which
they shall suffer S.I for two months.
7. With the above modification of the sentence, the
present revision application and I.A. No.854 of 2022 stand
disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Chandan/-
