Mahan Soren vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 1774 Jhar

                                    1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              Cr. Revision No. 643 of 2003
                            ---------

     Mahan Soren                                ..... Petitioner
                           Versus
     The State of Jharkhand.            .....   Opposite Party
                            ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Sahani, Advocate For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmim, APP

---------

09/Dated: 4th May, 2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. This criminal revision application is directed against

the judgment dated 02.07.2003, passed by learned 3rd

Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jamtara, in

Cr. Appeal No. 31 of 2000/ 29 of 2003, whereby the

judgment of conviction dated 15.09.2000 passed by learned

Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamtara in G.R. Case No. 82

of 1997, T.R.Case No. 269 of 2000; whereby the petitioner

has been convicted under Sections 354 and 341 of the

I.P.C. has been affirmed however the sentence is modified

to the extent that the petitioner was directed to undergo R.I.

for Six months.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant

has lodged an F.I.R. stating therein that on 14.03.97, at

about 7 p.m. while she was returning home from Bengal

Fire Clay as her duty was over, as soon as she reached just

by the side of canal adjacent to village Maldiha, the accused

came there and one namely, Mahan Soren started dragging

her towards the field. The informant raised alarm thereafter

both the accused snatched her silver necklace of value Rs.

400/- and fled away. The informant came to her home and

narrated the entire incidence to her father. A Panchayaty

was also held but the accused Mahan Soren did not pay

anything on the decision of Panchayat.

4. At the outset, Mr. A.K.Sahani, learned counsel for

the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not a habitual

offender. The petitioner has remained all along on bail and

now the petitioner is an aged person. As such, he is

confining his prayer only on the question of sentence as the

petitioner is an aged person and 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 APP opposes the prayer of the petitioner and

submits that there is concurrent finding and there is no

error in the impugned judgments. As such, the conviction

cannot be set aside, however the sentence may be modified

in lieu of fine.

6. After going through the impugned judgments

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 1997

and 25 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have

suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 25 years. Now

the petitioner is about 57 years of age and also remained all

along on bail and it is not stated that the petitioner has

ever misused the privilege of bail. Further, the incident does

not reflect any cruelty on the part of the petitioner or any

mental depravity.

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 appellate Court

below is, hereby, further modified to the extent that the

petitioner is sentenced pay a fine of Rs. 7,500/- .

10. It is made clear that the petitioner shall pay the

aforesaid fine of Rs. 7,500/- within a period of 4 months

from today before the court below, 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 stands 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.) Amardeep/