Upendra Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 2559 Jhar

                                        1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 Cr. Revision No. 852 of 2006
     Upendra Prasad.                   ..... Petitioner
                            Versus
     1. The State of Jharkhand
     2. Anand Kumar.             .....  Opposite Party
                                ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, APP

---------

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

2. This revision application is directed against the order

dated 31.08.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions

Judge-II, Bokaro at Chas in Cr. Appeal No. 58/1991; whereby

the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

20.03.1991 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st

Class Chas, Dhanbad, in G.R.Case No. 237/B of 1984 arising

out of B.S.City, P.S. Case No. 77 of 1984; whereby the

petitioner was sentenced to undergo S.I. for a term of three

months under Section 323 and three months under Section

354 I.P.C., both the sentences shall run concurrently, has

been sustained by appellate court and the appeal was

dismissed.

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

petitioner is not a habitual offender. The petitioner has also

undergone 54 days imprisonment and now the petitioner is

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

question of sentence as the petitioner is 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 1984 and 37 years

have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors

of litigation for the last 37 years. The petitioner also remained

in custody for 54 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 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/