Jharkhand High Court
Somara Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 January, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 966 of 2010
-------
Somara Oraon ..... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ..... ....Opposite Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Petitioner :Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party-State :Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, APP
.........
09/18.01.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This revision application is directed against the judgment
dated 26.7.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in Criminal
Appeal No.22 of 2010; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 7.4.2010 passed by the learned SDJM, Lohardaga,
corresponding to G.R. case no.61/05, T.R. No.679/2009; whereby the
petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 25(1-B)/A & Section
26 of the Arms Act and 414 IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period
of one year and six months with a fine of Rs.300/- for the offence under
Section 25(1-B)/A of the Arms Act, S.I. for one year with fine of Rs.200/-
under Section 26 Arms Act and S.I. for one year and ten months for the
offence under Section 414 IPC ; has been modified.
The appellate has sustained the conviction for the offence
under Section 25(1-B)/A & 26 of the Arms Act, however acquitted the
petitioner for the offence under Section 414 IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that there is
no other criminal antecedent of the petitioner save and except this case.
Further he confines his prayer for modifying the sentence for the period
already undergone as the case is of the year 2005. He further submits that
the petitioner has faced the rigors of litigation for last 18 years and he also
remained in custody for about 271 days. As such at this stage sending him
back to jail even for short period will hamper his entire family; as such
some leniency may be granted by modifying the sentence for the period
already undergone or in lieu of fine.
4. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgments and
submits that there is no error in the finding given by the courts
below,however he admits that save and except this case, no criminal
antecedent of the petitioner. 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 modified 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 2005 and about 18 years have elapsed
and the petitioner must has suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 18
years. It is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of
bail and he also remained in custody for about 271 days. Further no
criminal antecedent of the petitioner save and except this case.
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 modified by
the appellate court is, hereby, further 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.,
Lohardaga, 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., Lohardaga 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/-
