Allowed

Guddu Tiwari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC28 Nov 2019Cr.Rev./638/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court affirmed the conviction under Sections 323 and 427 IPC but, noting the long lapse of time and custody already undergone, commuted the sentence to the period already served subject to the payment of a fine and discharge from bail bonds.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is sentenced to undergo the period already undergone, to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000, and discharged from bail bond liability.

Guddu Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 638 of 2014

¶3

¶4

Guddu Tiwari … … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. party

¶7

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶9

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramanand Ram, Advocate For the State : Mr. Moti Gope, A.P.P. ---

¶10

05/28.11.2019 The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 10.04.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2013, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.09.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamtara in P. C R. Case No. 226 of 2006 (T. R. No. 677 of 2013), whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Sections 323 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced for six months RI for the offence punishable under Section 323 and one year RI for the offence under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentences were directed to run concurrently, has been affirmed.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there was a general allegation but the learned trial court has committed a gross error in acquitting the co-accused and convicting the petitioner only on same set of evidence. He further submits that there is no direct allegation against the petitioner but for erroneous reason, he has been convicted and the judgment of trial court is not sustainable in the eye of law. However, learned counsel for the petitioner made an alternative argument to the extent that since the petitioner is not a habitual offender and he has no criminal antecedent whatsoever, save and except the present one and he has remained in custody for about three months, therefore, he is entitled for some relief.

¶12

Learned A.P.P. for the State supports the impugned orders and submits that the learned trial court after appreciating the deposition of prosecution witnesses and minutely dealing with the documents available before him convicted the petitioner, as such the instant application deserves to be dismissed.

¶13

-2-

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned orders and lower court records and keeping in mind the limited scope of the 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, confirmed.

¶15

However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 2006 and thirteen years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for these years and also remained in custody for 94 days. It is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail. Further, the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part of the petitioner or any mental depravity. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that it may not be proper for this Court to send the accused person back to prison. In this way, I find it is expedient in the interest of justice that the sentence already undergone will suffice for the ends of justice for the alleged offence. However, since the petitioner has taken law in his hand, some fine must be imposed.

¶16

Thus, the sentence passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is modified to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone subject to the payment of fine of Rs. 3,000/-.

¶17

The aforesaid payment of Rs. 3,000/- shall be deposited before the Secretary, D.L.S.A., Jamtara within a period of three months from today.

¶18

With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence only, the instant revision application is disposed of.

¶19

The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bonds subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.

¶20

Let a copy of this order be communicated through FAX to the court concerned and the Secretary, D.L.S.A., Jamtara.

¶21

Let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.

¶22

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶23

Umesh/-

Guddu Tiwari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddu Tiwari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sudhir Ram and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shyampado Sarkar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mukesh Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abdul Hamid Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Susen Mahto and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand