Ishlam Mian vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 2040 Jhar

                                     1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              Cr. Revision No. 962 of 2003
                             ---------

1. Ishlam Mian.

     2. Jabbar Mian.                               ..... Petitioners
                           Versus
     The State of Jharkhand.               .....    Opposite Party
                             ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Nityanand Pd., Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, APP

---------

08/Dated: 6th June, 2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This revision application is directed against the

judgment dated 20.06.2003 passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge-IVth, Jamtara in Cr. Appeal No. 120 of 2001;

whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 02.08.1999 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st

Class at Jamtara, in G.R. Case No. 342 of 1985 (T.R. No. 394

of 1999); whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the

offence under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code and

sentenced to undergo S.I. for one and half years and to

undergo six months S.I. under Section 323 of I.P.C, and

ordered both sentences to run separately has been upheld

with modification and appeal has been dismissed. By way of

reducing the sentence passed in order dated 02.08.1999, the

learned Appellate Court has sentenced the petitioners to

undergo S.I. for six months under Section 332 of I.P.C. and

S.I. for three months under Section 323 of I.P.C. and ordered

both the sentences to run concurrently.

3. At the outset, Nityanand Pd., learned counsel

submits that the petitioners are not habitual offenders. The

petitioners have also undergone 59 days imprisonment and

now the petitioners are aged persons. As such, he is confining

his prayer only on the question of sentence as the petitioners

are aged persons and sending them 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

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 petitioners 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 1985 and 36 years

have elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors

of litigation for the last 36 years. The petitioners also

remained in custody for 59 days. Further, it is not stated that

the petitioners have ever misused the privilege of bail. In

addition, the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part

of the petitioners 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

petitioners/convicts back to prison; rather interest of justice

would be sufficed if the sentence is modified in lieu of fine.

8. Thus, the sentence passed by the Court below is,

hereby, further modified to the extent that the petitioners are

sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone,

subject to the payment of fine of Rs. 2,500/-each.

9. It is made clear that the petitioners shall pay the

aforesaid fine of Rs. 2,500/-each within a period of 4 months

from today before the court below, failing which they shall

serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned court

below.

10. With the aforesaid observations, directions and

modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision

application stands disposed of.

11. The petitioners shall be discharged from the liability of

their bail bond, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.

12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court

below and also to the petitioners 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.)

Amardeep/