Jharkhand High Court
Jitendra Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 427 of 2007
---------
Jitendra Kumar Singh. ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ..... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Das, Adv.
Mr. Preetam Mandal, Adv.
For the State : Mr. S.K.Srivastava, APP
---------
04/Dated: 12th October, 2022
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This revision application is directed against the
judgment dated 19.05.2007 passed by learned IVth
Additional Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, in Cr. Appeal
No. 76 of 2007; whereby the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 09.04.2007 passed by learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in G.R. Case
No. 2483 of 2006, corresponding to Trial No. 217 of 2007,
whereby the petitioner was convicted under section 379 of
the IPC and was sentenced to undergo S.I. for 1 year and
also pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default in payment of fine
further S.I. for one month; has been affirmed and appeal
filed by petitioner was dismissed.
3. 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 2006 and about 16 years
have elapsed since then and the petitioner must have
suffered the mental agony for ongoing litigation. He further
submits that the petitioner has never misused the privilege
of bail and he is not habitual offender and is the only earing
member of his family, 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
petitioner 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
petitioner 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 2006
and 16 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have
suffered the rigors of litigation for all these years. The
petitioner remained in custody for about 238 days and is a
middle aged person and also the earing member of his
family, thus sending him back to prison at this stage will
hamper the entire family. Further, it is not stated that the
petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail. In addition,
the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part of the
petitioner 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
petitioner/convict back to prison; rather interest of justice
would be sufficed if the sentence is modified to period
already undergone.
8. Thus, the sentence passed by the learned trial Court
and upheld by the learned appellate Court is hereby
modified to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to
undergo for the period already undergone.
9. With the aforesaid observations, and modification in
sentence only, the instant criminal revision application
stands disposed of.
10. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of
his bail bond.
11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
courts below and also to the petitioner through the officer-
in-charge of concerned police station.
12. Let the lower court record be sent to the court
concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/
