Sudhir Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 4141 Jhar

                                    1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
          Cr. Revision No. 432 of 2007
                            ---------

     Sudhir Kumar                                       ..... Petitioner
                            Versus
     1.The State of Jharkhand.
     2.Pushpa Devi.                         ..... Opposite Parties
                            With
                       Cr. Revision No. 433 of 2007
     1.Laxman Prasad.
     2.Sonapati Devi.
     3.Neelam Gupta.                                ..... Petitioners
                            Versus
     1.The State of Jharkhand.
     2.Pushpa Devi.                         ..... Opposite Parties
                            ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K.Kashyap, Sr. Adv.

(in both the cases) For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, APP (in both the cases)

---------

04/Dated: 12th October, 2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Let the Criminal Revision No. 433 of 2007 be tagged

with Cr. Rev. No. 432 of 2007 and passed the common

judgment.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners filed death

certificate and submits that (in Cr. Rev. No. 433 of 2007)

the petitioner no.1, namely- Laxman Prasad has already

died on 21.05.2015.

4. In view of the aforesaid submission, the instant

application is dismissed as abated against petitioner no.1,

namely, Laxman Prasad in Cr. Rev. No. 433 of 2007.

5. This revision application is directed against the

judgment dated 12.03.2007 passed by learned 1st

Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in Cr. Appeal

No. 89 of 2005; whereby the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 20.05.2005 passed by learned Sub-

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint Case

No. 740 of 2001 and T.R. No. 99 of 2005, whereby the

petitioners were convicted under sections 498 A IPC and

were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and pay a fine of

Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to

undergo S.I. for 3 months each separately and both the

sentences were ordered to run concurrently, has been

affirmed and appeal filed by petitioners were dismissed.

6. Mr. A.K.Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the

petitioner submits that the petitioner of Cr. Rev. No. 432 of

2007 is brother-in-law (Bhaisur of the complainant)

whereas petitioner no.1 in Cr. Rev. No. 433 of 2007 has

died and petitioner no.2 is mother-in-law of the

complainant and she is aged about 74 years. Further

petitioner no.3 is the sister-in-law (Nanad of the

complainant). She further submits that the husband of the

complainant died prior to institution of this case and the

entire case has been fabricated only with an ulterior motive

to take share in their ancestral property. However, he does

not want to raise the contentious issue of evidence for the

reason that the application has been filed under revisional

jurisdiction. However looking to the overall facts and

circumstances of the case and the custody of the petitioners

including the age and relation of the petitioners with the

complainant and the time gap between the date of

institution of the complaint, the application may be

disposed of by modifying the sentence as period undergone.

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

petitioner and submits that there is concurrent finding and

as such, no interference is required.

8. 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.

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

apparent from record that the incident is of the year 2001

and 21 years have elapsed and the petitioners must have

suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 21 years. The

petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 432 of 2007 remained in

custody for about 59 days and petitioner nos. 2 and 3 in

Cr. Rev. No. 433 of 2007 remained in custody for about 51

and 13 days, respectively and are middle aged persons and

sending them back to prison at this stage will hamper the

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.

10. 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 to

period already undergone.

11. Thus, the sentence passed by the learned trial Court

and upheld by the learned appellate Court is hereby

modified to the extent that the petitioners are sentenced to

undergo for the period already undergone.

12. With the aforesaid observations, and modification in

sentence only, these criminal revision applications are

disposed of.

13. The petitioners shall be discharged from the liability

of their bail bonds.

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/