High Court dismissed criminal revision against conviction under IPC 387 and 120B but modified sentence by enhancing fine and allowing discharge from bail liability.
Sentence modified to Rs. 10,000 fine each payable in three months; petitioners discharged from bail bonds; earlier sentences to run concurrently.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.1225 of 2014
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.K. Jaiswal, APP -----
05/Dated: 22/11/2019
The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 21.11.2014, passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Gumla in Cr. Appeal No.86/2012, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.12.2012, passed by the learned SDJM, Gumla in G.R. No.830/2007 (T.R. No.231/2012), whereby the petitioners have been convicted under Sections 387 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo SI for a period of 3 years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 387 IPC and further sentenced to undergo SI for one years with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 120B IPC and in default of payment of fine the petitioners were directed to further undergo SI for a period of 3 months and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently, has been affirmed.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28-092007 the informant received a telephonic call from mobile No.9937473419 on his mobile No.9304065155 in which one area commander demanded rupees fifty thousand as ransom from him with threatening that on non-fulfillment of the said ransom he will be killed. The caller had given three days' time for that. Again on 01-10-2007 through the same mobile no. a threatening call was received on the mobile of informant for non-fulfillment of demand. Further time was given to fulfill the
-2-
demand till 03/04-10-2007. Again on 03-10-2007 at 7 A.M the Area Commander Virat Singh of JLT called him and demanded rupees twenty thousand up to 2.30 P.M. Again at 2.30 P.M the caller demanded money and again he gave time till 05/06-10-2007. Again on 05-10-2007 the caller in the name of Virat Singh demanded money then the informant went to P.S and lodged a FIR. Thereafter on the direction of S.P., Gumla, police thought a plan and in civil dress several police personnel went to Basia College on two different tractor and started waiting for accused persons. The informant came there and his brother too came there with the amount of Rs. Twenty thousand for giving the same to the accused. In the meantime three miscreants came on the pointed place by the JLT but the police personnel surrounded and arrested them who disclosed their names as Ramu Baraik, Sudhir Ram and Arvind Ram. During search, three mobile phone sets were recovered from their possession for which a seizure list was prepared.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned trial court has committed error in convicting the petitioners under Section 387 IPC. She further submits that there are material contradictions among the deposition of the prosecution witnesses which clearly transpires that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. She made an alternative argument that both the petitioners are young and as such if they will be sent back to custody then their entire career will be ruined and their family members who are dependent on the petitioners will suffer irreparable lose.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the State submits that there is concurrent finding of both the courts below and the petitioners have failed to point out any error in the impugned order so as to interfere with the same. In this view of the matter no interference is required, however, there
-3-
is no dispute to the contention of the petitioners that they are young people and never misused the privilege of bail.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned APP for the State. After going through the impugned orders including lower court records and keeping in mind the limited scope of the revision 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, confirmed.
However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 2007 and 12 years have elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 12 years and the petitioner no.1 also remained in custody for 306 days and the petitioner no.2 also remained in custody for 313 days. It is not stated that the petitioners have ever misused the privilege of bail. Further, the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part of the petitioners or any mental depravity.
In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the accused persons back to prison rather interest of justice would be sufficed if the sentence is modified in lieu of fine.
Thus, the sentence passed by the Court below 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. 10,000/- each.
It is made clear that the petitioners shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs. 10,000/- each within a period of three months from today before the learned Secretary, DLSA Gumla.
With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence only, this revision application is disposed of.
The petitioners shall be discharged from the liability
-4-
of their bail bonds, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.
Let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.
Let the copy of this order be communicated to the court below and the Secretary, DLSA, Gumla.
(Deepak Roshan, J)
Pramanik/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision court should interfere with the conviction and sentence given the facts of the case.
Whether the sentence awarded to the petitioners should be modified given the delay and their conduct.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sudhir Ram
Arbind Kumar Ram
The State of Jharkhand
DEEPAK ROSHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
