Mantu Singh @ Dharmdeo Singh vs State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 2714 Jhar

                                    1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              Cr. Revision No. 250 of 2004
                            ---------

Mantu Singh @ Dharmdeo Singh ..... Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party

---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Priya Shrestha, A.P.P

---------

04/Dated: 18th July, 2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This revision application is directed against the

judgment dated 17.01.2004 passed by learned Sessions

Judge, Bokaro in Cr. Appeal No. 31 of 1998; whereby the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

28.05.1997, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class at

Bokaro in G.R. Case No. 763 of 1997 corresponding to T.R.

No. 1108 of 1998; whereby the petitioner has been

convicted for the offence under Section 387 of I.P.C. and

was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of

Rs.1,000/- and further R.I. for 2 years under Section 452 of

I.P.C. and also R.I. for three months under Section 323 of

the I.P.C., it has been further directed that all the sentences

shall run concurrently, has been affirmed.

3. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner

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 petitioner

must have suffered the mental agony for ongoing litigation

and at present he is old man and he also remained in

custody about 323 days. He further submits that the

petitioner has never misused the privilege of bail and he is

not a habitual offender, as such some leniency may be

granted by this Court.

4. Learned A.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

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 1997

and 25years have elapsed and the petitioner must have

suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 25 years. The

petitioner also remained in custody about 323 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/