Jharkhand High Court
Habil Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 May, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1002 of 2004
-------
Habil Oraon ..... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ..... ....Opposite Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Petitioner :Mr. K.S.Nanda, Adv.
For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, APP
.........
05/04.05.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties through
V.C.
2. This revision application is directed against the
judgment dated 25.5.2004 passed by learned 1st Additional
Session Judge, Gumla in Criminal Appeal No.48 of 94;
whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 26.07.1994 passed by the learned 2nd Assistant
Sessions Judge, Gumla, in S.T. No.110/89 arising out of
Raidih P.S. Case No.47/87; whereby the petitioner was
convicted and sentenced to undergo Six years Rigorous
Imprisonment for the offence under Section 307 IPC,
however no separate sentence has been passed for the
offence under Section 323, 325 of the IPC; has been
affirmed and the appeal filed by the petitioner was
dismissed.
3. The prosecution case in short is that on
6.12.1987 at about 5. p.m., the informant was going to
Mariumtoli along with his son and son-in-law. As soon as
he reached in Murkela village the accused person was
standing having rod in his hand and told the informant to
leave Chirgaon village otherwise he threatened to kill him
and his entire family. In the meantime the accused person
assaulted the informant's son with rod on his head and
near his mouth as a result he sustained bleeding injuries
on his head and lips. When the informant and his son-in-
law went to save him the accused also assaulted them with
rod on their head, left leg and hand, as a result of which
they also sustained bleeding injuries. On the raising hulla
the villagers came there and the accused person fled away.
On the basis of the said fardbeyan, the instant
case was registered for the offence under Sections 341,
323, and 307 of the IPC and after investigation police
submitted charge-sheet for the aforesaid sections including
325 of the IPC. Accordingly, charge was framed against the
petitioner for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried and finally he was convicted.
4. At the outset, Mr. K.S. Nanda, learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not habitual
offender and due to village politics the same has happened.
Now the petitioner is aged about 76 years and he also
remained in custody for 97 days; as such, he is confining
his prayer only on the question of sentence and since the
petitioner is now an aged person; sending him 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
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 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 35 years have elapsed and the petitioner must
have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 35 years. It
is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the
privilege of bail and he also remained in custody for 97
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 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 petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the
period already undergone, subject to the payment of fine of
Rs. 10,000/-.
10. It is made clear that petitioner shall pay the
aforesaid fine within a period of 4 months from today before
the court below, Gumla; failing which he shall serve rest of
the sentence as ordered by the learned Court below.
11. With the aforesaid observations, directions and
modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision
application is disposed of.
12. The petitioner shall be discharged from the
liability of his bail bond, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid
condition.
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/-
