Raja Ram Khatik vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 4096 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
          Cr. Revision No. 950 of 2007
                        ---------

1.Raja Ram Khatik.

2.Munna Seth.

     3.Chunnu Seth.                                      ..... Petitioners
                           Versus
     The State of Jharkhand.                     .....   Opposite Party
                                    ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K.Sahani, Adv.

                           Mr.            Sanket Kumar, Adv.
     For the State       : Mr.            Arup Kr. Dey, APP
     For the O.P. No.2   : Mr.            R.C.P.Sah, Adv.
                                    ---------

05/Dated: 11th October, 2022

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This revision application is directed against the

judgment dated 14.12.2005, passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge (FTC-II), Seraikella, in Cr. Appeal No. 14C

of 1999; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 11.02.1999 passed by learned Sub-

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, in G.R. Case No. 152 of

1995, whereby the petitioners were convicted under

sections 448, 323 and 341 of the IPC and were sentenced to

undergo R.I. for 6 months under Section 323 of IPC and R.I.

for 6 months under Section 448 IPC and were sentenced to

R.I. for 15 days under section 341 of IPC has been affirmed

with modification in sentence and appeal filed by

petitioners was dismissed.

Appellate court reduce the sentence for 3 months

under Section 323 & 448 IPC and 15 days under Section

341 IPC and both the sentences were ordered to run

concurrently.

3. 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 1995 and about 27 years

have elapsed since then and the petitioners must have

suffered the mental agony for ongoing litigation. He further

submits that these petitioners have never misused the

privilege of bail and they are not habitual offenders and

they also remained in custody for about 32 days, as such

some leniency may be granted by this Court and sentence

may be modified to period already undergone.

4. Learned Addl.P.P. opposes the contention of the

petitioners and submits that there is concurrent finding

and as such, no interference is required.

5. 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.

6. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is

apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1995

and 27 years have elapsed and the petitioners must have

suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 27 years. The

petitioners remained in custody for about 32 days and now

they are middle aged persons 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.

7. 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.

8. 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. 1,500/- each.

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

aforesaid fine of Rs. 1,500/- each before the learned trial

court.

10. The fine should be deposited before the trial court

within a period of four months who in turn will issue notice

to the informant and pay the same after due verification.

11. With the aforesaid observations, directions and

modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision

application stands disposed of.

12. The petitioners shall be discharged from the liability

of their bail bonds subject to fulfilment of aforesaid

condition.

13. 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.

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

concerned forthwith.

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

Amardeep/