Allowed

Sagar Chandra Mandal v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Aug 2021Cr.Rev./38/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision filed against a sentence in a neighbourhood dispute case involving physical injury. The petitioner, a first-time offender who had surrendered, sought sentence modification under Section 357 Cr.P.C. The High Court, noting no life-threatening injury and the existence of a counter-case, modified the sentence.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified: imprisonment reduced to time already undergone; Rs.6000 compensation imposed to be deposited; petitioner directed to be released forthwith if detention not required in other cases.

Sagar Chandra Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 38 of 2021

¶2

¶3

I.A. No.3306 of 2021

¶4

.... Sagar Chandra mandal .… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party .... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Pd. Joshi, Adv. For the State : Mr. Sanat Kr. Jha, APP.

¶5

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsels for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

¶6

06/17.08.2021 The instant criminal revision application has been filed against the order dated 28.11.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamtara in Criminal Appeal No.60 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the order dated 18.07.2018 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara in G.R. Case No.417 of 2012 (T.R. No.56 of 2018) has been upheld.

¶7

It has been submitted that there is a case and counter case and the reason for dispute is neighbourhood dispute. It has been alleged that as per the allegation, petitioner alongwith other co-accused have assaulted the members of informant group. P.W.1, namely, Brajesh Burman and P.W.-5, namely, Dilip Burman (the informant) had sustained injury. The other co-accused has been given the benefit under the probation of offenders Act. In the counter case, the victim party has also been given the benefit but the same benefit has been denied to the present petitioner. It has been further submitted that both the parties are neighbour and they are residing peacefully. It has been further submitted that the petitioner has surrendered in the court below on 14.07.2021 and he is remained in custody for about a month.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer to the sentencing part only and submitted that the petitioner is ready to pay the compensation amount as per the mandate of Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. On above facts, it has been submitted that the sentencing part may be modified accordingly.

¶9

Learned A.P.P. has no objection.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that the dispute is of the year 2012. There is a case and counter case. It further appears that the injury sustained is not life threatening. Further, all the accused persons from both the sides have been given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and this is the first offence of this petitioner.

¶11

Considering the entire material available on record and the age of the petitioner and the relationship of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the order of sentence requires modification. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the order of sentence/ judgment dated 28.11.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamtara in Criminal Appeal No.60 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the order dated 18.07.2018 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara is, hereby, modified to the extent that imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner and the compensation amount of Rs.6000/- is imposed upon the petitioner to be deposited in the court below within four weeks. Rs.3000/- each shall be released in favour of the injured victim P.W.-1 and P.W.-5, namely, Brajesh Burman and Dilip Burman.

¶12

With above modification of the sentence, the present revision application and I.A. No.3306 of 2021 stand disposed of.

¶13

The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case.

¶14

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶15

Shahid/

Sagar Chandra Mandal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagar Chandra Mandal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranvir Bauri Alias Ravi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bibhash Chandra Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suresh Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gajo Ram Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajendra Nonia Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Man Mohan Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand