Jamsen Hembrom vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 3092 Jhar

                                                              Cr. Revision No.395 of 2016
                                                                         With
                                                             Cr. Revision No.1553 of 2015
                                    1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   Cr. Revision No. 395 of 2016

 1. Jamsen Hembrom
 2. Devid Hansda              ... ...                                Petitioners
                              - Versus -
 The State of Jharkhand               ...            ...           Opposite Party
                            WITH
                 Cr. Revision No. 1553 of 2015

 1. Kalia Hansda
 2. Jhagga Hansda
 3. Inush Ansari
 4. Rotha Sah @ Rutha Sah
                                        ...            ...               Petitioners
                              Versus -
 The State of Jharkhand                        ...       ...          Opposite Party

                ------

CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

-----

 For the Petitioners      : M/s. R. K. Singh, Advocate
                           (In Cr. Rev No. 395/16)
                          : M/s. S. N. P. Rai, Advocate
                          (In Cr. Rev No. 1553/15)

 For the State           : M/s. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P.
                          (In Cr. Rev No. 395/16)
                          : M/s. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.
                          (In Cr. Rev No. 1553/15)
                          -----
 09/22.08.2023

 1. Heard the Parties.

2. Both these revision applications arise out of a common judgment. Accordingly, both these applications are being disposed of by a common order.

3. The petitioners Jamsen Hembrom and Devid Hansda (in Cr. Revision No. 395 of 2016) and petitioners Kalia Hansda, Jhagga Hansda, Inush Ansari and Rotha Sah @ Rutha Sah (in Cr. Revision No. 1553 of 2015) have preferred these applications against the judgment dated 06.07.2015, passed by Sri Om Prakash Pandey No-

Cr. Revision No.395 of 2016 With Cr. Revision No.1553 of 2015

1, learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj in Criminal Appeal No. 63/2014 filed by the petitioners, whereby and wherein, the learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj, dismissed the appeal of these petitioners and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Sri Anand Mani Tripathi, learned J.M.F.C., Sahibganj in connection with G. R. No. 409/2012 arising out of Barhait P. S.

Case No. 64/2012, holding the petitioners guilty of offences under sections 323/ 379/ 427 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentencing them to undergo R.I. for 4 months for the offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for one year for the offence under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for 8 months for the offence under section 427 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

4. Learned lawyer appearing for the petitioners submitted that they will confine their arguments only on the question of sentence. It was submitted that the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is one year alongwith a fine and maximum sentence prescribed for the offence under section 427 of the Indian Penal Code is two years or with fine. It was further submitted that the petitioners have not been held guilty in any other case for that matter they have not been made accused in any other case. Accordingly, it was prayed that the sentence passed by the learned trial court directing the petitioners to undergo R.I. for 4 months for the offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for eight months for the offence under section 427 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for one year for the offence under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code may be set aside and petitioners may be given benefit of section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

5. Ms. Ruby Pandey, learned A.P.P. in criminal revision no. 395 of 2016 and Mr. Saket Kumar learned A.P.P. in criminal revision no. 1553 of 2015 stated that they have no objection if the petitioners are given benefit of section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

Cr. Revision No.395 of 2016 With Cr. Revision No.1553 of 2015

6. There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioners are accused in any other case. The offence alleged is covered under the provision of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

7. Considering the aforesaid fact; I am inclined to extend the benefit of the aforesaid provision to the petitioners. Accordingly, the sentence passed by the learned trial court is set aside.

8. Both these Criminal Revision Applications are partly allowed with modification of the sentence. The petitioners shall be released after due admonition.

9. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

Saurabh Uploaded