Kahru Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3793 Jhar

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 Cr. Revision No. 1039 of 2004
     1.Kahru Oraon.
     2.Jerku Oraon.
     3.Sheo Narayan Oraon.
     4.Tejua Oraon.
     5.Harkhu Oraon.
     6.Nandu Oraon.
     7.Khudi Oraon.
     8.Chintu Oraon.
     9.Pati Oraon.
     10.Budhwa Oraon.
     11.Ludu Oraon.
     12.Kunwar Oraon.
     13.Mangru Oraon.
     14.Ratiya Oraon.
     15.Ramprit Oraon.
     16.Jhagu Oraon.
     17.Kisun Oraon.                                ..... Petitioners
                            Versus
     1.The State of Jharkhand
     2.Munna Oraon.                         ..... Opposite Parties
                                ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Prasad, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, APP.

---------

10/Dated: 20th September, 2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Pursuant to the order dated 30.03.2022 notice was

issued to the petitioners. A service report has been received

indicating therein that petitioner nos. 10,11,13,15 and 17

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. 10,11,13,15 and

17.

4. This revision application is directed against the

judgment dated 06.08.2004 passed by learned Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Lohardaga, in

Cr. Appeal No. 02 of 2001; whereby the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 13.07.2001 passed by

learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Lohardaga, in

Complaint Case No. C-73/96 (T.R. No. 08 of 2001); whereby

the petitioners were convicted under Section 379 and 143

I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year for the

offence under Section 379 IPC and S.I. for three months for

the offence under Section 143 IPC, both the sentences were

directed to run concurrently, has been affirmed and appeal

filed by petitioner was dismissed.

5. Mr. Manoj Prasad, 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 1996 and

about 26 years have elapsed since then and the petitioners

must have suffered the mental agony for ongoing litigation. 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.

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 1996 and 26 years

have elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors

of litigation for the last 26 years. The petitioner nos. 1, 2, 4, 5,

6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14 and 16 remained in custody for 54 days

whereas petitioner no.3 remained in custody for about 79

days and now they are middle aged person 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.

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.

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. 2000/- each.

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

aforesaid fine of Rs. 2000/- each within a period of 4 months

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

shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned

court below.

10. With the aforesaid observations, directions and

modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision

application stands disposed of.

11. The petitioners shall be discharged from the liability of

their bail bonds subject to fulfilment of aforesaid condition.

12. 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.

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

concerned forthwith.

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

Amardeep/