Gopal Ram v. the State of Jharkhand
Case brief
What is this about?
In a revision filing challenging conviction and sentence under the Indian Penal Code, the High Court of Jharkhand upheld the conviction but remitted the sentence order, modifying imprisonment to a fine of Rs. 10,000 due to the lapse of 17 years and absence of statutory notice requirements for the accused.
What did the court decide?
Petitioner sentenced to undergo period already undergone but liable to pay fine of Rs. 10,000 within 3 months; discharged from bail bond liability.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.701 of 2014
Gopal Ram ….. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party -----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
----- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi , Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, APP -----
08/Dated: 22/11/2019
The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 30.04.2014, passed by the learned Sessions Judge-IV, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2008, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.04.2008, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sadar P.S. Case No.91/2002, corresponding to G.R. No.436/2002 (T.R. No.424/2008), whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Sections 324, 326 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced for RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 326 IPC, RI for 1 year for the offence under Section 324 IPC and SI for one month for the offence under Section 341 IPC, has been modified to the extent that the conviction under Sections 326 and 341 IPC has been affirmed and the conviction under Section 324 was set-aside.
The learned counsel for the petitioner confines his argument on the question of sentence only and submits that at present the petitioner is aged about 50 years and the incident relates to the year 2002 as such the petitioner has already suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 18 years and also remained in custody for 83 days. He further submits that there is no other criminal antecedent save and except the present one as such he may be granted relief by this Court otherwise his entire family will be ruined.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial appellate court's judgment confirming conviction and imposing imprisonment should be interfered with in the interest of justice given the passage of time and lack of bail misuse.
Whether the sentence of imprisonment should be modified to a fine in the circumstances of the case.
Whether the petitioner should be discharged from bail bonds upon imposition of the fine.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Gopal Ram
- respondent
The State of Jharkhand
Coram
DEEPAK ROSHAN
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Jharkhand HC
- Decided on
- · November
- Registered
- Case no.
- Cr.Rev./701/2014
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court