Balgovind Uraon vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3906 Jhar

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
          Cr. Revision No. 772 of 2003
                            ---------

1.Balgovind Uraon.

2.Satyadeo Oraon.

3.Bhikheshwar Minz.

4.Jhuna Devi.

     5.Fulmani Devi.                           ..... Petitioners
                           Versus
     The State of Jharkhand           .....     Opposite Party
                           With
           Cr. Revision No. 1103 of 2003
                            ---------
     1.Shobhan Uraon.
     2.Sahadeo @ Charka Uraon.
     3.Sudhir Uraon.
     4.Chandan Uraon.
     5.Binda Uraon.
     6.Budhani Devi.
     7.Indri Devi.                                   ..... Petitioners
                           Versus
     1.The State of Jharkhand.
     2.Ashok Minz.                            ..... Opposite Parties
                            ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Adv. For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, APP.

---------

09/Dated: 23rd September, 2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Pursuant to the service report in Cr. Rev. No. 772 of

2003 and Cr. Rev. No. 1103 of 2003, petitioner nos. 1, 3, 4

and 5 have died (in Cr. Rev. No. 772 of 2003) and petitioner

nos. 1 & 5 have died (in Cr. Rev. No. 1103 of 2003).

3. In view of the aforesaid fact, both these revision

applications are dismissed as abated against petitioner nos. 1,

3, 4 and 5 in Cr. Rev. No. 772 of 2003 and petitioner nos. 1 &

4. Both these revision application are directed against the

judgment dated 19.06.2003 passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. VII, Hazaribagh, in Cr.

Appeal No. 21 of 2000; whereby the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated 06.01.2000 passed by learned

Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hazaribagh, in Complaint

Case No. 475 of 1997 (T.R. No. 514 of 2000); whereby the

petitioners were convicted under Sections 447, 147 and 379

IPC and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for Six months, have

been affirmed and appeal filed by petitioners were dismissed.

5. Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for the

petitioners confines his argument on the question of sentence

on the ground that both these applications are of the year of

1997 and about 25 years have elapsed since then and the

petitioners must have suffered the mental agony for ongoing

litigation. He further submits that the petitioners (in both

these cases) 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 1997 and 25 years

have elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors

of litigation for the last 25 years. The petitioner no. 2

remained in custody for about 14 days (in Cr.Rev No. 772 of

2003) and petitioner nos. 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 remained in custody

for 24 days (in Cr. Rev No. 1103 of 2003) and now all the

petitioners are middle aged 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 to period already

undergone.

10. 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.

11. With the aforesaid observations, and modification in

sentence only, the instant criminal revision application stands

disposed of.

12. The petitioners in both these applications shall be

discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.

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

below and also to the petitioners in both these cases 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/