Jai Kumar Verma vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 4052 Jhar

                                  1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  Cr. Revision No. 382 of 2007
Jai Kumar Verma                                    ..... Petitioner
                             Versus
The State of Jharkhand                        ..... Opposite Party
                             ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioner     : Mr. A.K. Mishra, Advocate
For the State          : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, APP
                             --------
06/ 10.10.2022         Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant criminal revision application is directed

against the judgment dated 16.03.2007, passed by learned 5th

Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dumka, whereby the

Cr. Appeal No. 30 of 2004, preferred by the petitioner has been

dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 24.03.2004 in G.R. No. 80 of 1999, corresponding to T.R. No.

525 of 2004, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class,

Dumka, whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to

undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 279

of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo SI for one year under

Section 304 A of IPC, has been affirmed.

3. The prosecution case in brief is based upon the fard-

bayan of the informant-Saroj Kumar @ Laddu Kumar, for which

FIR has been lodged against the petitioner. After investigation,

police has submitted chargesheet and cognizance has been taken

against the petitioner; for which the petitioner pleaded not guilty

and claimed to be tried. After trial, the petitioner was found guilty

for the offences and he was convicted and his appeal was also

rejected by the learned appellate court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his

argument on the question of sentence and submits that the

petitioner remained in custody for about 24 days and he is the

only earning member of his family and sending him back to

prison at this stage will hamper his entire family. Further, it is not

stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail, as

such the sentence may be modified for the period already

undergone.

5. 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.

6. 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 parties 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.

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

record that the incident is of the year 1999 and 22 years have

elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of

litigation for the last 22 years. Further, petitioner also remained in

custody for few days and it is not stated that the petitioner has

ever misused the privilege of bail.

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

fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner back to

prison and interest of justice would be sufficed by modifying the

sentence in lieu of fine.

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

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

petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the period already

undergone subject to payment of fine of Rs.10,000/-. The amount

shall be deposited before the Secretary, D.L.S.A, Dumka within

four months from today.

10. With the aforesaid observation, direction and

modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision

application stands disposed of.

11. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of

his bail bond, subject to payment of fine of Rs.10,000/-.

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

court below, Secretary, D.L.S.A., Dumka and the petitioner

through officer-in-charge of concerned police station.

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

concerned forthwith.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Pramanik/