Partly allowed

Binod Bihari Sharma and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Dec 2019Cr.Rev./662/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court confirmed the conviction of the petitioners for offences under various IPC sections but modified the sentence, directing them to pay a fine subject to which they were discharged from bail liabilities.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/- each within three months; subsequent non-payment leads to serving remainder of sentence; petitioners discharged from bail bond liability.

Binod Bihari Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 662 of 2013

¶2

¶3

1.Binod Bihari Sharma 2.Parmeshwar Singh Choudhary … … Petitioners Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. party

¶5

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶6

--For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pramod Kr. Choudhary, A.P.P.

¶7

¶8

08/16.12.2019 The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 14^th June, 2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 2012, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners along with the co-convicts has been partly allowed.

¶9

The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Bokaro vide its judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27^th July, 2012, in G.R. Case No. 957 of 1994 convicted the petitioners along with co-accused for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 474 and 120B I.P.C.

¶10

The learned appellate Court has modified the impugned order to the extent that the other co-convicts were acquitted from the charges while the conviction as against the petitioners were sustained with respect to charge under sections 420, 471 and 120B of the I.P.C.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the same set of allegations the other co-convicts were acquitted by the learned appellate court. He further contended that it was not the petitioners but the other co-convicts who actually tampered the documents and the petitioners are innocent and falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the allegation is with respect to withdraw extra advance amount only. The total contract work was of Rs.1,00,000/- and the petitioners have completed the entire work. It is not the case of prosecution that petitioners have committed fraud by taking extra amount and not completed the contract work. He further submits that the petitioners are old persons and since the work has already been completed by them, therefore, the sentence

¶12

-2-

¶13

may be modified in lieu of fine.

¶14

Per contra, the learned A.P.P. supports the impugned order and submits that there is no error, whatsoever, in the impugned orders and no relief should be granted to the petitioners.

¶15

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

¶16

However, so far as the sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1994 and more than 25 years have elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 25 years and also remained in custody for some time. 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 it may not be proper for this Court to send the accused persons back to prison rather interest of justice would be sufficed if the sentence is modified in lieu of fine.

¶17

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 subject to the payment of the cost of Rs. 5,000/- each.

¶18

It is made clear that the petitioners are directed to pay the aforesaid fine of Rs. 5,000/- each within a period of three months from today before the learned District Legal Services Authority, Bokaro, failing which they shall serve rest of the sentence as directed by the learned trial court.

¶19

-3-

¶20

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

¶21

The petitioners shall be discharged from the liability of their bail bonds subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.

¶22

Let this order be sent to the learned trial court and the District Legal Services Authority, Bokaro through FAX.

¶23

Amardeep/-

Binod Bihari Sharma and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binod Bihari Sharma and Anr. v. 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

Bokre Oraon And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Rabindra Nath Goswami and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rohidas Mahato Alias Ruhidas and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mantu Rajwar Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Sudhir Thakur Vs State of Jharkhand

Om Prakash Ram Om Prakash Koiri Vs State of Jharkhand

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Bokre Oraon And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Rabindra Nath Goswami and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rohidas Mahato Alias Ruhidas and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mantu Rajwar Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Sudhir Thakur Vs State of Jharkhand

Om Prakash Ram  Om Prakash Koiri Vs State of Jharkhand

Om Prakash Ram Om Prakash Koiri Vs State of Jharkhand