Shivlal Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 4669 Jhar

                                              1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
          Cr. Revision No. 636 of 2009
                          ---------

1.Shivlal Singh.

2.Dhaneshwar Singh. ..... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand. ..... Opposite Party

---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shekhar Pd. Sinha, Adv.

     For the State             : Mr. B.Shastri, APP
                                      ---------

04/Dated: 22nd November, 2022

Pursuant to the order dated 20.09.2022 notices were

issued to the petitioners. A service report has been received

indicating therein that petitioner no. 1-namely- Shivlal

Singh has died long before and the notice has been served

upon the petitioner no.2.

2. In view of the aforesaid fact, the instant application is

dismissed as abated against the petitioner no. 1-namely-

Shivlal Singh.

3. This revision application is directed against the

judgment dated 11.06.2009, passed by learned Sessions

Judge, Dhanbad, in Cr. Appeal No. 244 of 2006; whereby

the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

27.11.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st

Class, Dhanbad, in connection with Katras (Kapuria) P.S.

Case No. 272 of 1996, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2955

of 1996 (T.R. No. 708 of 2006); whereby the petitioners were

convicted under sections 147, 341, 323, 337, 353, 225,

427, 149 IPC and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1

years for the offence under Section 147, 353, 225, 427 IPC

and for 6 months for the offence under Sections 323, 337

IPC and S.I. for one month for the offence under Section

341 IPC and all the sentences were ordered to run

concurrently has been affirmed and appeal filed by the

petitioner was dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly confines his

argument on the question of sentence on the ground that

the instant case is of the year of 1996 and about 26 years

have elapsed since then and the petitioner must have

suffered the mental agony for ongoing litigation. He further

submits that this is the only case filed against the

petitioner no.2 and there is no other criminal antecedent

against him. He further submits that the petitioner no.2 is

a middle aged person and also remained in custody for

about 21 days and has never misused the privilege of bail,

as such some leniency may be granted by this Court and

sentence may be modified to period already undergone.

5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the contention of the

petitioner and submits that there is concurrent finding and

as such, no interference is required though he fairly admits

that there is no criminal antecedent of the petitioner no.2.

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 revisional jurisdiction, I am

not inclined to interfere with the finding of the courts below

and as such the judgments 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 1996

and 26 years have elapsed and the petitioner no.2 must

have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 26 years.

The petitioner no.2 also remained in custody for ten weeks

and now he is middle aged person and sending him back to

prison at this stage will hamper the entire family. Further,

it is not stated that the petitioner no.2 has ever misused the

privilege of bail. In addition, the incident does not reflect

any cruelty on the part of the petitioner no.2 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 Court below 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. 5,000/-.

10. It is made clear that the petitioner no.2 shall pay the

aforesaid fine of Rs. 5,000/- within a period of 4 months

from today before the D.L.S.A, Dhanbad 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/fine only, the instant criminal

revision application stands disposed of.

12. The petitioner no.2 shall be discharged from the

liability of his bail bond subject to fulfilment of aforesaid

condition.

13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the

courts below and Secretary DLSA, Dhanbad and also to the

petitioner no.2 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/