Jagdeo Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3941 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
          Cr. Revision No. 37 of 2007
                          ---------

1.Jagdeo Singh.

2.Kaltu Singh.

3.Sohan Singh.

     4.Gurdip Singh                                  ..... Petitioners
                           Versus
     The State of Jharkhand.                        .....    Opposite Party
                                      ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Adv. For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, APP

---------

06/Dated: 26th September, 2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Pursuant to the order dated 23.08.2022 notice was

issued to the petitioners. A service report has been received

indicating therein that petitioner no. 2, namely- Kaltu

Singh has 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 no. 2.

4. This revision application is directed against the

judgment dated 27.11.2006 passed by learned Additional

District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Latehar, in Cr. Appeal

No. 41 of 2006; whereby the judgment of conviction and order

of sentence dated 14.09.2006 passed by learned Judicial

Magistrate, 1st Class, Latehar, in G.R.Case No. 125 of 2003

(T.R. No. 73 of 2006); whereby the petitioners were convicted

under Sections 25 (1-B) a, Arms Act and were sentenced to

undergo R.I. for three years and fine of Rs. 500/- and in

default S.I. for one month, under Section 25(1-B)a Arms Act

and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and fine

of Rs. 500/- in default SI for one month under Section 26

Arms Act, both the sentences were directed to run

concurrently, has been affirmed and appeal filed by petitioner

was dismissed.

5. Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathy, 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

2003 and about 19 years have elapsed since then and the

petitioners must have suffered the mental agony for ongoing

litigation. He further submits that this is only case filed

against them and there is no other criminal antecedent

against these petitioners. 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 though he fairly admits

that there is no criminal antecedent of these petitioners.

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 2003 and 19 years

have elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors

of litigation for the last 19 years. The petitioner nos. 1 and 3

remained in custody for about 185 days and petitioner no.4

also remained in custody for about 164 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.

10. 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. 10,000/- each.

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

aforesaid fine of Rs. 10,000/- each within a period of 4

months from today before the D.L.S.A, Latehar, failing which

they shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned

court below.

12. With the aforesaid observations, directions and

modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision

application stands disposed of.

13. The petitioners shall be discharged from the liability of

their bail bonds subject to fulfilment of aforesaid condition.

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/