Jharkhand High Court
Tadyus Purty vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 16 July, 2025
2025:JHHC:19318
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 875 of 2015
Tadyus Purty, Son of Gabrial Purty, Resident of Village: Srijan, P.O. & P.S.:
Bandgaon, District: West Singhbhum. ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate
For the State :
---------
Order No.17/ Dated 16th July, 2025
1. This revision is filed against the judgment dated 10th March, 2015 passed
by learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal
Appeal No.81 of 2014 whereby and whereunder, judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 09.07.2014 passed by learned Assistant
Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No.175 of
2010 has been affirmed and the appellant has been held guilty for the
offences under Sections 449 /307 of IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/revisionist is present before this Court
and submitted that petitioner confined his prayer in the present appeal
only to the extent of sentence only by assailing the impugned judgment
dated 09.07.2014 passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge in Sessions
Trial No.175 of 2010, whereby and whereunder petitioner found guilty
under Sections 449/307 of IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act and sentenced
to undergo R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under
Section 449 of IPC and also R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the
offence under Section 307 of IPC and further, sentenced to undergo R.I.
for 4 years and fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 27 of Arms
Act. In default of payment of fine on each Rs. 1000/-, convict shall be
served further R.I. for 4 months and for Rs. 500/-, convict shall be served
further R.I. for 2 months which would run alternatively and the said
judgment is affirmed by the learned appellate court in Criminal Appeal
No.81 of 2014 vide order dated 10th March, 2015.
2025:JHHC:19318
3. Learned counsel submitted that out of maximum sentence awarded to the
petitioner, he has already spent more than 5 years and 6 months in the
custody.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/revisionist has further handed over the
receipt dated 11.07.2025 in the Court, showing deposit of fine amount of
Rs. 2,500/- to the Nazir which has been imposed by learned Trial Court.
Same is taken on record.
5. He further submitted that petitioner is an agriculturist and having two
children and apart from that, he has also to look after his parents, as he is
the only son after the death of his brother.
6. Upon aforesaid premise, prayer has been made that the sentence awarded
to the petitioner be modified to the period already undergone.
7. From perusal of record, it transpires that on 22.02.2010, petitioner along
with other co-accused persons entered into the house of informant and in
solar light, informant found that the PLF extremists, namely, Mani Singh,
Chamru Singh, Digri Singh, Barka Purty and Tadyus Purty (petitioner
herein) entered into the house and the informant was asked why does he
work as a middle man for the police and upon answering, the petitioner
fired bullet on him by a country-made pistol which struck on his chest and
informant fell down on the ground, blood started oozing out and the
accused persons after threatening the nearby people fired 2-3 rounds in
the air and fled away. Then, the informant was taken to nearby Bandgaon
hospital and the police patrolling party met them at the Church More in
the morning at about 3.30 A.M. on 23.02.2010 and the statement of
informant was recorded by the police. Thereafter, an FIR was registered
under Sections 147/148/149/449/452/307 of IPC and Section 27 of Arms
Act and Section 13 of UAP Act and after completion of investigation,
charge sheet was submitted.
8. After appreciation of evidence, learned Assistant Sessions Judge found
petitioner guilty under Sections 449 /307 of IPC and Section 27 of Arms
Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- for
the offence under Section 449 of IPC and also R.I. for 7 years and fine of
Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and further,
2025:JHHC:19318
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years and fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence
under Section 27 of Arms Act vide judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 09.07.2014.
9. Against the judgment dated 09.07.2014, the petitioner preferred an appeal,
being Criminal Appeal No.81 of 2014 before Sessions Judge, but same
was dismissed vide judgment dated 10th March, 2015.
10. This Court has called for the custody report from the Central Jail,
Ghaghidih, Jamshedpur and report dated 09.10.2024 has been received,
which reveals that petitioner has already undergone 5 years, 6 months and
6 days in the present case.
11. Even, one verification report is also available on record which reveals that
the petitioner is not involved in any criminal activity and this verification
report has been issued by Bandgaon Police Station, Chaibasa.
12. This Court finds that the petitioner has faced agony of trial for more than
14 years and he is only the bread winner of the family which also
comprises his parents and petitioner has already remained in custody for 5
years, 6 months and 6 days out of the sentence imposed by learned Trial
Court.
13. Therefore, this Court is of considered view that ends of justice would be
met if sentence awarded to the petitioner by learned Assistant Sessions
Judge in Sessions Trial No.175 of 2010 vide order dated 09th July, 2014
and affirmed by the learned appellate court in Criminal Appeal No.81 of
2014 vide order dated 10th March, 2015 is modified and the petitioner is
sentenced to period already undergone.
14. Consequently, this Court affirms the judgment of conviction of petitioner
dated 10th March, 2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, West
Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No.81 of 2014, but modifying
the sentence as stated above.
15. The instant Criminal Revision is partly allowed and disposed of, subject
to above-said modification.
16. Let the trial court record be sent back to the court concerned.
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Suman
