Jharkhand High Court
Suray Marandi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 July, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1091 of 2004
-------
Suray Marandi ..... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... ....Opposite Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Petitioner :Mr. S.S.Choudhary,Adv.
For the Opposite Party :Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, APP
.........
05/22.7.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This revision application is directed against the
judgment dated 2.9.2004 passed by learned Sessions
Judge, Sahibganj in Criminal Appeal No.16/04; whereby
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
30.7.2004 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-
I, Sahibganj in Sessions Case No.474/84 corresponding to
G.R. Case No.201/82; whereby the petitioner was convicted
u/s 307 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of five years; has been affirmed
and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
3. The prosecution case in short is that on
29.07.1982 when the victim-informant was sleeping at the
Varandah of his Fufa's house after taking dinner and in the
midnight someone came there and penetrated a pointed
substance in his chest and after that informant got up and
saw that Jhappu Hembram was standing near to him and
Suray Marandi was standing in the courtyard. When he
raised alarm his fufi got up and came there who also
identified both the accused persons who were fleeing away.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner
made prayer for modifying the sentence for the period
already undergone as now the petitioner is aged about 84
years and the case is of the year 1982 and he also
remained in custody about 391 days. Therefore, at this
stage of life sending him back to jail 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 1982
and about 40 years have elapsed and the petitioner must
have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 40 years. It
is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the
privilege of bail and the petitioner remained in custody for
391 days and at present the petitioner is almost 85 years.
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. 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.
13. Let the lower court record be sent to the court
concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Fahim/-
