Jharkhand High Court
Raj Kumar Manjhi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 January, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 916 of 2010
-------
1. Raj Kumar Manjhi
2. Bhagirath Manjhi ..... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand. ..... ....Opposite Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Petitioner :Mr. A. K. Sahani Adv.
For the Opposite Party-State :Ms. Vandana Bharti, APP
.........
05/18.1.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated
14.09.2010 passed by learned Sessions judge, Saraikella Kharsawan in
Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2010; whereby the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 29.06.2010 passed by the learned SDJM, Saraikella
Kharsawan, corresponding to G.R. No.642/2004 T.R.No.82/2010; whereby
the petitioners were convicted for the offence under Section 363/34 IPC and
for passing of the appropriate sentence the case records were sent to the Court
of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikella Kharsawan and thereafter by the order
dated 6.7.2010 both the petitioners were sentenced to undergo R.I. for a
period of Seven years with a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment
further to undergo S.I. for 15 days, has been affirmed and the appeal filed by
the petitioners was dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners confines his prayer for
modifying the sentence as the case is of the year 2004. He further submits that
the petitioners have faced the rigors of litigation for last 19 years and they also
remained in custody for about 117 days. As such at this stage sending them
back to jail even for short period will hamper their 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. 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 2004 and about 19 years have elapsed
and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 19
years. It is not stated that the petitioners have ever misused the privilege of
bail.
7. 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.
8. Thus, the sentence passed by the trial court and upheld by the
appellate court 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.12,500/- each.
9. It is made clear that petitioners shall pay the aforesaid fine of
Rs.12,500/- each within a period of 4 months from today before the D.L.S.A.,
Saraikella Kharsawan, failing which they 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 petitioners shall be discharged from the liability of their 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., Saraikella Kharsawan and also to the petitioners 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/-
