Jharkhand High Court
Vivekanand Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 February, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 31 of 2010
-------
Vivekanand Singh ..... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ..... ....Opposite Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Petitioner :Mr. Ranjan Kr. Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party-State :Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, APP
.........
05/27.02.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated
20.11.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Godda in Criminal Appeal
No.39 of 2006; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 13.12.2006 passed by the learned J.M, 1st Class, Godda, corresponding
to G.R.No. 1230/2000, T.R. No.210/2006; whereby the petitioner was
convicted for the offence under Section 498 A of the IPC and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for a period of one year with a fine of Rs.1000 and in default of
payment of fine further to undergo S.I. for a period of 3 months; has been
affirmed and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer for
modifying the sentence for the period already undergone as the case is of the
year 2000. He further submits that the petitioner has faced the rigors of
litigation for last 23 years and he also remained in custody for about 69 days.
As such at this stage sending him back to jail even for short period will
hamper his entire family as at present petitioner is aged about 55 years; as
such some leniency may be granted by modifying the sentence for the period
already undergone.
4. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgments and
submits that there is no error in the finding given by the courts below. As
such, the conviction cannot be set aside, however the sentence may be
modified in lieu of fine.
5. After going through the impugned judgment including the lower
court records and keeping in mind the submissions of the learned counsel for
the parties and also the scope of revisional jurisdiction, I am not inclined to
interfere with the finding of the courts below and as such the judgment 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 2000 and about 23 years have elapsed
and the petitioner must has suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 23
years. It is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail
and he also remained in custody for about 69 days and at present he is aged
about 55 years.
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 in lieu of
fine.
8. Thus, the sentence passed by the trial court and upheld by the
appellate court is, hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioner is
sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone, subject to the payment
of fine of Rs.10,000/-.
9. It is made clear that petitioner shall pay the aforesaid fine of
Rs.10,000/- within a period of 4 months from today before the D.L.S.A.,
Godda, failing which he shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the
learned courts below.
10. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in
sentence only, the instant criminal revision application is disposed of.
11. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail
bonds, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.
12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below,
Secretary, D.L.S.A., Godda and also to the petitioner 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.)
Fahim/-
