Partly allowed

Lakhan Mandal and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 Feb 2020Cr.Rev./1079/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court affirmed the conviction under Sections 323, 341, and 498A IPC but modified the sentence from imprisonment to a fine of Rs.10,000 jointly, considering the 11-year litigation delay and the petitioner's prior custody.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to a fine of Rs.10,000 jointly to be paid within 3 months; petitioners discharged from bail bond liability after payment. Conviction affirmed.

Lakhan Mandal and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1079 of 2014

¶2

Lakhan Mandal

¶3

Manua @ Inua Devi

¶4

Teklal Mandal ….. Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party ----CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶7

----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Nityanand Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.K. Tiwary, APP -----

¶8

05/ 14.02.2020 The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 28.07.2014, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2013, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.08.2013, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Jamtara in G.R. No.163 of 2009, corresponding to T.R. No.623 of 2013, whereby the petitioners have been convicted under Sections 323, 341 and 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and were directed to undergo R.I for 6 months under Section 323 IPC, R.I for one month under Section 341 IPC and RI for one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently, has been affirmed.

¶9

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after this occurrence, the informant has married with one Rohit Mandal. He further submits that a supplementary affidavit has been filed to this effect wherein the certificate of Mukhiya certifying the fact of marriage is annexed as Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit. In view of this fact, some leniency may be granted to the petitioners, even otherwise they remained in custody for considerable time.

¶10

Per contra, Mr. V.K. Tiwary, the learned APP for the State though supports the impugned judgment but did not dispute the fact as incorporated in the supplementary affidavit. However, he submits that the sentence may be

¶11

-2-

¶12

modified in lieu of fine.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned APP for the State.

¶14

After going through the impugned judgments including lower court records and keeping in mind the limited submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the 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.

¶15

However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 2009 and 11 years have elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 11 years. Further, petitioner No.1 remained in custody for 55 days, petitioner No.2 remained in custody for 34 days and petitioner No.3 remained in custody for 272 days. It is not stated that the petitioners have ever misused the privilege of bail. Further, the informant had also married with another person.

¶16

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.

¶17

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/- jointly.

¶18

It is made clear that the petitioners shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.10,000/- jointly, within a period of 3 months from today before the learned Secretary, DLSA, Jamtara.

¶19

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

¶20

-3-

¶21

disposed of.

¶22

The petitioners shall be discharged from the liability of their bail bonds, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.

¶23

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

¶24

Let the copy of this order be communicated to the court below, the Secretary, DLSA, Jamtara and also to the petitioners namely 1. Lakhan Mandal, 2. Manua @ Inua Devi and 3. Teklal Mandal through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station.

¶25

(Deepak Roshan, J)

¶26

Pramanik/

Lakhan Mandal and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhan Mandal and Ors. 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

Narendra Kumar Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajay Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Niranjan Murmu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bom Mandal and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Ram Kripal Tiwari Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Abdul Ansari And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.