Jharkhand High Court
Md. Kalam vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 March, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 406 of 2004
-------
1. Md. Kalam
2. Md. Aslam ..... .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ..... ....Opposite Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Petitioners :Mr. Vikram Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, APP
.........
07/22.03.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This revision application is directed against the
judgment dated 14.10.2003 passed by learned 6th
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dumka in Criminal
Appeal No.56 of 2009/86 of 2003; whereby the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 19.03.90 passed by
the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dumka in
G.R.No.284/87, T.R. No.112/90; whereby the petitioners
were convicted under Sections 341 and 354 IPC and
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month
for the offence under Section 341/34 IPC and R.I for 1 year
for the offence under Section 354/34 IPC and ordered that
both the sentences shall run concurrently; has been
affirmed and the appeal filed by the petitioners was
dismissed.
3. The prosecution case in short is that the
informant-Alita Devi was coming from her in-laws house to
her parents' house. When she reached at village Chapatari
on the bridge she saw that two persons were sitting there
and when she reached on the bridge the two accused
persons caught hold of her and they took her under the
bridge to commit rape upon her. On raising hulla nearby
persons came there and one of the accused person was
caught hold and other fled away.
On the basis of the said Fardbeyan Hansdiha
P.S. Case No.18/87 was registered and after investigation
police submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons.
Thereafter charges were framed for the offence u/s 341/34,
354/34, and 379/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried.
4. At the outset, Mr. Vikram Singh, learned counsel
for the petitioners submits that the petitioners remained in
custody for 167 days and now they are aged about 60
years; as such, he is confining his prayer only on the
question of sentence and since the petitioners are now aged
persons; sending them back to jail at this stage even for
short period will hamper the entire family; as such the
sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.
5. Learned counsel for the State supported the
judgments and submits that there is no error in the finding
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
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 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 1987
and about 34 years have elapsed and the petitioners must
have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 34 years.
Further both the petitioners remained in custody for about
Six months. It is not stated that the petitioners have ever
misused the privilege of bail.
8. 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.
9. Thus, the sentence passed by the trial court and
upheld by the appellate court is, hereby, modified to the
extent that the petitioners are sentenced to undergo for the
period already undergone, subject to the payment of fine of
Rs. 5000/- each.
10. It is made clear that petitioners shall pay the
aforesaid fine within a period of 4 months from today before
the court below, Dumka; failing which they shall serve rest
of the sentence as ordered by the learned Trial Court.
11. With the aforesaid observations, directions and
modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision
application is disposed of.
12. The petitioners shall be discharged from the
liability of their bail bonds, subject to fulfillment of
aforesaid condition.
13. 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.)
Fahim/-
