Mukesh Tigga vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 39 Jhar

                                       1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  Cr. Revision No. 509 of 2004
     1.Mukesh Tigga.
     2.Nirmal Tigga.                            ..... Petitioners
                             Versus
     The State of Jharkhand.            ..... Opposite Party
                               ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioners : Ms. Aanya Singh, Amicus For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, APP

---------

09/Dated: 3rd January, 2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This revision application is directed against the judgment

dated 12.08.2002 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge,

Latehar, in Cr. Appeal No. 124 of 2000; whereby the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 28.11.2000 passed by

learned sub Divisional Judicial magistrate, Latehar in G.R. Case

No. 93 of 2000 (T.R. No. 472 of 2000); whereby the petitioners

were convicted under Section 394 IPC and sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each

and in default of payment of fine, each of them are further

sentenced to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment, has

been affirmed and appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

3. Ms. Aanya Singh, learned Amicus submits that in the

F.I.R informant has nowhere stated about the assault. Hence, no

case is made out under Section 394 IPC. She further contended

that no independent witness has supported the case of the

prosecution and as a matter of fact, save and except the

informant, none of the prosecution witness forwarded to lodge

the F.I.R. Since the face of the dacoits were concealed as per the

prosecution witness then under what circumstances it can be

said that the petitioner have been identified in this case. Relying

upon the aforesaid submission the learned Amicus prays for an

acquittal.

She alternatively prays that sentence may be modified to

period already undergone as the instant case is of the year 2000

and about 23 years have elapsed and now the petitioners are

middle aged persons and they must have suffered mental agony

for ongoing litigation and both the applicant remanded in

custody for almost 2 years. She 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.

4. Learned A.P.P. opposes the contention of the petitioners

and submits that there is concurrent finding and as such, no

interference is required.

5. After going through the impugned judgments including

the lower court records and keeping in mind the alternative

submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also

the scope of revision jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere

with the findings of the court below and as such the judgments

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 23 years

have elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of

litigation for the last 23 years. The petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 also

remained in custody for about 636 & 652 days respectively.

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.

7. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no

fruitful purpose would be served by sending the

appellant/convict back to prison; rather interest of justice would

be sufficed if the sentence is modified to period already

undergone.

8. Thus, the sentence passed by the learned trial Court and

upheld by the learned appellate Court is hereby modified to the

extent that the petitioners are sentenced to undergo for the

period already undergone.

9. With the aforesaid observations, directions and

modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision

application stands disposed of.

10. The petitioners shall be discharged from the liability of

their bail bonds.

11. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services

Committee shall reimburse Ms. Aanya Singh, learned Amicus on

submission of bill(s) for this case as @ Rs. 5000/- per hearing

subject to the ceiling as per the existing notification.

12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court

below, the Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services

Committee and also to the petitioners through the officer-in-

charge of concerned police station.

13. Let the lower court record be sent back to the court

concerned forthwith.

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

Amardeep/