Partly allowed

Abdul Hamid v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Jharkhand HC28 Nov 2019Cr.Rev./650/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in criminal revision, held that while conviction under IPC Sections 323, 498A, and 379 stands confirmed, the sentence of imprisonment should be modified to fine due to 20 years elapsed and custody already suffered, deeming reimprisonment unjust.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment modified to a fine of Rs. 5,000/- payable within three months; petitioner discharged from bail bonds liability upon payment.

Abdul Hamid Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr. — Domestic Violence | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 650 of 2014

¶2

¶3

Abdul Hamid … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand … … 2. Asgari Khatoon Opp. parties

¶4

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶5

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Ishteyaque Ahmed, Advocate For the State : Mr. H. Pd. Singh, A.P.P. ---

¶6

06/28.11.2019 The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 19.12.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2004, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.10.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Jamtara in P.C.R. Case No. 105 of 1997, whereby the petitioner has been convicted along with co-convict namely, Naimuddin @ Nemu Mian for the offence under Sections 323 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner was further convicted for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years with fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, one year for the offence under Section 323 and two years for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, has been affirmed.

¶7

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no specific allegation has been made against the petitioner rather, the allegations are general in nature. As a matter of fact, there is no assault which has been proved against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is not a habitual offender and there is no criminal antecedent whatsoever, save and except the present one. In this background, interest of justice would be sufficed if the sentence is modified for the period already undergone or in lieu of fine.

¶8

Learned A.P.P. though supports the impugned orders but did not dispute the fact that there is no other criminal antecedent of the petitioner.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶10

-2-

¶11

After going through the impugned orders including the lower court record and keeping in mind the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, I refrain myself from interfering with the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court, and the same is confirmed.

¶12

However, so far as the sentence is concerned, the incident is of the year 1997 and more than twenty years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for all these years and also remained in custody for about nine months. It is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner back to prison rather, interest of justice would be sufficed if the sentence is modified in lieu of fine.

¶13

Thus, the sentence passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone subject to the payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/-.

¶14

It is made clear that the petitioner shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs. 5,000/- within a period of three months from toady before the learned trial court which shall be paid to the informant/legal heirs of the informant as compensation.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

Let a copy of this order be communicated through FAX to the court concerned.

¶18

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

¶19

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶20

Umesh/-

Abdul Hamid v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Hamid v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

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

Guddu Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Susen Mahto and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand