Salku Manjhi vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 4057 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
          Cr. Revision No. 927 of 2006
                      ---------

1.Salku Manjhi.

2.Dhani Ram Manjhi.

3.Rabilal Manjhi.

4.Mansu Dhoba.

5.Lalu Dhoba.

     6.Mansu Manjhi.                            ..... Petitioners
                           Versus
     1.The State of Jharkhand.
     2.Sri Baldeb Gorai.        .....           Opposite Parties
                                  ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Om Prakash Singh, Adv.

     For the State       : APP
                                  ---------

04/Dated: 10th October, 2022

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Pursuant to the order dated 29.08.2022 notice was

issued to the petitioners as well as O.P. No.2. A service

report has been received indicating therein that petitioner

nos. 1, 2 and 3 have died and the notices have been served

upon rest of the petitioners.

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

dismissed as abated against petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3.

4. This revision application is directed against the

judgment dated 14.09.2006 passed by learned 6th Additional

Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Cr. Appeal No. 27 of 1995;

whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 26.04.1995 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,

Dhanbad, in C.P.Case No. 68 of 1993 (T.R. No. 474 of 1995);

whereby the petitioners were convicted under Sections 403

and 406 of the IPC and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one

year has been modified by appellate court and reduce it into

R.I. for six months, has been affirmed and appeal filed by

petitioners were dismissed.

5. Mr. O.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners must

have suffered the mental agony for ongoing litigation. He

further submits that this is only case filed against them and

there is no other criminal antecedent against these

petitioners. He further submits that the petitioners have never

misused the privilege of bail and they are not habitual

offenders, as such some leniency may be granted by this

Court and sentence may be modified to period already

undergone.

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

petitioners 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 these petitioners.

7. 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

judgments of conviction passed by the learned trial court and

upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby, sustained.

8. 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 petitioners must have suffered the rigors

of litigation for the last 27 years. The petitioner nos. 4 to 6

remained in custody for about 57 days and now they are

middle aged person and sending them back to prison at this

stage will hamper their entire family. Further, it is not stated

that the petitioners have ever misused the privilege of bail. In

addition, the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part

of the petitioners 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

petitioners/convicts 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 Court below is,

hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioners are

sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone,

subject to the payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/- each.

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

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

from today before the D.L.S.A, Dhanbad, failing which they

shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned

court below.

12. With the aforesaid observations, directions and

modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision

application stands disposed of.

13. The petitioners shall be discharged from the liability of

their bail bonds subject to fulfilment of aforesaid condition.

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

below and also to the petitioners through the officer-in-charge

of concerned police station.

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

concerned forthwith.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Amardeep/