Ijlash Mian vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 1837 Jhar

                                 1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  Cr. Revision No. 1101 of 2004
1. Ijlash Mian
2. Kuddush Mian
3. Nausad Mian @ Chuni Mian
4. Basir Mian
5. Ayub Mian
6. Sahadat Mian                              ..... Petitioners
                              Versus
The State of Jharkhand                   .....       Opposite Party
                              ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

                  Through Video Conferencing
For the Petitioners    : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the State          : Mr. Ruby Pandey, APP
                              --------
06/ 06.05.2022         Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This criminal revision application has been preferred by

the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 30.08.2004, passed

by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV (Fast Track Court),

Jamtara, in Criminal Appeal No. 100 of 1995; whereby the appeal

filed by the petitioners has been dismissed with modification in the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated

27.11.1995, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,

Jamtara, in G.R. Case No. 387 of 1986, T.R. No.234 of 1995,

whereby the appellate court has convicted the petitioner No.1 and

petitioner Nos.3 to 6 for the offence under Sections 326/149 of the

Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for one year and convicted the petitioner No.2 for the

offence under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI

for two years.

3. As per the prosecution case as alleged in the First

Information Report, inter alia, is that on 2.11.1986 while the

informant was returning to his house and reached near the village-

Fujhori, Kartik Ahir requested him to help in the foundation work

and while he was returning to his house at about 5 P.M. and

reached in between Phooljhori and Majhladih, all the accused

persons appeared and abused him. The petitioner No.1 is alleged

to have assaulted him by tangi and all the other petitioners are

alleged to have assaulted him and on his cry, the villagers arrived

on the spot but in the meantime, the petitioners forcibly took

away Rs.600/- and his cycle. After investigation police authority

submitted chargesheet against the accused persons to which they

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After trial, the accused

persons were convicted.

4. It appears from record that vide order dated 18.01.2005,

passed earlier in this case, only petitioner No.2 was granted bail and

his case was admitted for hearing. However, this application was

dismissed as against petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 & 6. Thus, this case is

being pressed on behalf of petitioner No.2 only.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his

argument on the question of sentence and submits that the

petitioner No.2-Kuddush Mian remained in custody for about 61

days and during entire period of bail he never misused the

privilege of bail; as such, the sentence may be modified in lieu of

fine.

6. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment

and submits that there is no error in the findings given by the

courts below. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside,

however, the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and

after going through the impugned judgments including the lower

courts records and keeping in mind the limited submissions of the

learned counsel for the petitioner No.2 and also the scope of

revisional 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.

8. So far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from

record that the incident is of the year 1986 and 36 years have

elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of

litigation for the last 36 years. Further, the petitioner No.2 also

remained in custody for about 61 days and during entire period of

bail he never misused the privilege of bail. Further, the incident

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

mental depravity.

9. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no

fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner No.2

back to prison; rather interest of justice would be sufficed if the

sentence is modified in lieu of fine.

10. Thus, the sentence passed by the trial court and upheld

by the appellate court is hereby modified to the extent that the

petitioner No.2 is sentenced to undergo for the period already

undergone, subject to the payment of fine of Rs.2,500/- (two

thousand five hundred).

11. It is made clear that the petitioner No.2 shall pay the

aforesaid fine of Rs.2,500/- (two thousand five hundred) 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

trial court.

12. With the aforesaid observation, direction and

modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision

application stands disposed of.

13. The petitioner No.2 shall be discharged from the

liability of his bail bond, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid

condition.

14. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the

court below and also to the petitioner No.2-Kuddush Mian

through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station.

15. Let the lower court record be sent back to the court

concerned forthwith.

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

Pramanik/