Nabin Mahali @ Navin Mahali vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 4670 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
          Cr. Revision No. 638 of 2009
                      ---------

1. Nabin Mahali @ Navin Mahali.

     2. Dukhi Ram Mahali                               ..... Petitioners
                           Versus
     The State of Jharkhand.    .....         Opposite Party
                                  ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Pramod Kr., Adv.

     For the State       : Mr. V.S.Sahay, APP
                                  ---------

10/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- Nabin

Mahali @ Navin Mahali has died 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-

Nabin Mahali @ Navin Mahali.

3. This revision application is directed against the

judgment dated 30.06.2009, passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge-Fast Track Court No.1 at Ghatshila, in Cr.

Appeal No. 38 of 2001; whereby the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated 05.03.2001 passed by learned

Assistant Sessions Judge, Ghatshila passed S.T. No. 131 of

1994 arising out of Dhalbhumgarh (Gorabanda), P.S. Case

No. 14 of 1993, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 222 of

1993; whereby the petitioners were convicted under

sections 366 and 368/34 IPC and were sentenced to

undergo R.I. for 5 years each. Petitioner no.2, namely- Dukhi Ram Mahali has also found guilty separately for the

offence under Section 366 A IPC and was sentenced to

undergo R.I. for 5 years and both the sentences were

ordered to run concurrently has been partly allowed and

conviction under Section 368 IPC read with Section 34 IPC

was set aside 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 1993 and about 29 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 the petitioner. He further submits that the

petitioner no.2 is a middle aged person and also remained

in custody for about 198 days and has never misused the

privilege of bail and he is not a habitual offender, 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 as per available on record 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 with modification 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 1993

and 29 years have elapsed and the petitioner no.2 must

have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 29 years.

The petitioner no.2 remained in custody for about 198 days

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. 25,000/-.

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

aforesaid fine of Rs. 25,000/- within a period of 4 months

from today before the D.L.S.A, Ghatshila, East Singhbhum

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, Ghatshila, East

Singhbhum 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/