Jharkhand High Court
Krishna Das @ Santanu Das @ Babu @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 July, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 979 of 2004
-------
Krishna Das @ Santanu Das @ Babu @ Sadhan
..... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... ....Opposite Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Petitioner :Ms. Saman Ahmad, Amicus
For the Opposite Party :Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, APP
.........
05/22.7.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This revision application is directed against the
judgment dated 23.7.2004 passed by learned Addl. District
& Sessions Judge, FTC-V, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal
No.141 of 2001; whereby the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 20.10.2001 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad corresponding to G.R. Case
No.2767/1994; whereby the petitioner was convicted u/s
392 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of two years; has been affirmed
and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
3. The prosecution case in short is that on 28-07-
1994 at about 1:00 pm, the fardbeyan of the informant
named Mritunjay Kumar Singh was recorded by the
Dhanbad Police where he alleged that on 28-07-1994 at
about 10.20 am the informant proceeded from his house to
Dhanbad on his Motorcyle bearing registration no.BR 20-S-
8469 and when he reached near Jharkhand Chowk at
about 11:10 am, some persons were roaming on the road.
One person stopped the informant by holding his
Motorcycle handle and the other person threatened him by
pointing his gun and asked him to leave the Motorcycle.
They all looted the informant's Motorcycle, Helmet and
Rs.1200/- cash. It is alleged that after snatching away, all
the miscreants fled away from the place of occurrence.
Thereafter the informant went to the Dhanbad Police
Station and lodged the FIR against unknown person.
4. Ms. Saman Ahmad, learned amicus submits that
the prosecution could not examine any independent
witnesses in support of the case in view of the fact that at
the place of occurrence there were several houses situated
in that area and the Courts below also failed to take into
consideration that neither the petitioner is named in the
F.I.R nor anything has been recovered from the possession
of the petitioner and in the present case the alleged stolen
motorcycle was never recovered by the I.O.
Learned Amicus canvassed an alternative
argument and submits that apart from this case the
petitioner has no criminal antecedents and the petitioner
has already remained in jail custody for a total period of 1
year 3 months and 15 days and has faced the rigors of
trial. At present, the petitioner is aged about 57 Years; as
such, she is confining her prayer only on the question of
sentence as the petitioner is now an aged person and
sending him back to jail at this stage even for short period
will hamper the entire family; as such some leniency may
be granted by modifying the sentence for the period already
undergone.
5. Learned counsel for the State supported the
judgments and submits that there is no error in the
findings given by the courts below. As such, the conviction
cannot be set aside, however the sentence may be modified
in lieu of fine.
6. After going through the impugned judgment
including the lower court records and keeping in mind the
limited submissions of the learned counsel for the parties
and also the scope of revision jurisdiction, I am not inclined
to interfere with the finding of the courts below and as such
the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court
and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby,
sustained.
7. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is
apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1994
and about 28 years have elapsed and the petitioner must
have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 28 years. It
is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the
privilege of bail and the petitioner remained in custody for
about 470 days.
8. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion
that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the
petitioner/convict back to prison; rather interest of justice
would be sufficed if the sentence is modified for the period
already undergone.
9. Thus, the sentence passed by the trial court and
upheld by the appellate court is, hereby, modified to the
extent that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the
period already undergone.
10. With the aforesaid observations and modification
in sentence only, the instant criminal revision application
is disposed of.
11. The petitioner shall be discharged from the
liability of his bail bonds.
12. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal
Services Committee shall reimburse the learned Amicus on
submission of bills as per the guidelines.
13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
court below and also to the petitioner through the officer-
in-charge of concerned police station.
14. Let the lower court record be sent to the court
concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Fahim/-
