Shiv Kumar Nayak vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 2553 Jhar

                                      1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  Cr. Revision No. 843 of 2006
     Shiv Kumar Nayak.                       ..... Petitioner
                             Versus
     The State of Jharkhand            .....  Opposite Party
                              ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Adv.

For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, APP

---------

06/Dated: 11th July, 2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This revision application is directed against the

judgment of conviction dated 12.07.2006 passed by learned

1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in Cr. Appeal No.

02/2001, by which the learned appellate court has upheld the

conviction under Section 25(1-b)A Arms Act and sentenced

the petitioner to undergo R.I. for 2 years thereby upholding in

part the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

05.01.2001 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class,

Jamshedpur in G.R. Case No. 961/93, T.R. No. 421/2001, by

which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo

2 years R.I. and 3 years R.I. respectively, under Sections 25(1-

b) A and 26(1) of Arms Act.

3. Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel submits that the

petitioner is not a habitual offender. The petitioner has also

undergone 375 days imprisonment and now the petitioner is a

middle aged person. As such, he is confining his prayer only

on the question of sentence as the petitioner is a middle aged

person and sending him back to jail at this stage even for

short period will hamper the entire family.

4. Learned A.P.P. opposes the contention of the petitioner

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 petitioner 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 1993 and 28 years

have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors

of litigation for the last 28 years. The petitioner also remained

in custody for 375 days. Further, it is not stated that the

petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail. In addition,

the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part of the

petitioner 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

appellant/convict back to prison; rather interest of justice

would be sufficed if the sentence is modified to period already

undergone.

8. Thus, the sentence passed by the learned trial Court

and upheld in part by the learned appellate Court is hereby

modified to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to

undergo for the period already undergone.

9. With the aforesaid observations and modification in

sentence only, the instant criminal revision application stands

disposed of.

10. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of

his bail bond.

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

below and also to the petitioner through the officer-in-charge

of concerned police station.

12. Let the lower court record be sent to the court

concerned forthwith.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Amardeep/