Birendra Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 1775 Jhar

                                     1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              Cr. Revision No. 430 of 2004
                             ---------

1. Birendra Yadav.

2. Surendra Yadav.

3. Bablu.

     4.   Doctor Kumar.                              ..... Petitioners
                           Versus
     The State of Jharkhand.                 .....   Opposite Party
                             ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K.Das, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.D.Agarwal, Spl.PP

---------

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

2. This criminal revision application is directed against

the judgment dated 27th April, 2004, passed by learned

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court

No.-I, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum, in Cr. Appeal No.

15/2002; whereby he dismissed the appeal with

modification, the judgment dated 12th April, 2002, passed

in Sessions Trial No. 432 of 1995, passed by learned 1st

Assistant Sessions Judge, Singhbhum East, whereby he

has convicted the petitioners for the offences under sections

324 /34 and 326/34 of I.P.C. and sentenced them to

undergo R.I. for 2 years for conviction under Sections

324/34 IPC and has further sentenced to R.I. for 3 years

and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- to each convict for offence

under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and in

default of such payment of fine they were sentenced to

undergo S.I. for 6 months; whereby the sentence imposed

for the charge under Sections 324/34 has been set aside

while upholding the conviction and sentence under

Sections 326/34 of I.P.C.

3. At the outset, Mr. A.K.Das, learned counsel for the

petitioners submits that the petitioners are not habitual

offenders. The petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 have also

undergone imprisonment for 199, 135, 130 and 124 days,

respectively, 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 their entire family; as such the sentence may be

modified in lieu of fine.

4. Learned Spl.PP opposes the prayer of the petitioners

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.

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 judgment 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 1994

and 27 years have elapsed and the petitioners must have

suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 27 years. Further

petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 also remained in custody for

about 199, 135, 130 and 124 days, respectively, and it is

not stated that the petitioners have ever misused the

privilege of bail.

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. 7500/-each.

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

aforesaid fine of Rs. 7500-/-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.

13. Let the lower court record be sent to the court

concerned forthwith.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Amardeep/