Partly allowed

Mahendra Beldar v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Apr 2022Cr.Rev./107/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court sustained the conviction of the petitioner for house-breaking under Sections 457 and 511 IPC but modified the original sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and fine to a fine of Rs.3,000/- subject to payment within four months, otherwise the remaining sentence shall be served.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to fine of Rs.3,000/- payable within four months or else serve remaining sentence; petitioner discharged from bail liability.

Mahendra Beldar Vs State of Jharkhand — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 107 of 2004 Mahendra Beldar ….. Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party

¶5

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunit Kr. Ghosh, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. PP --------

¶7

05/ 05.04.2022 Heard Mr. Sunit Kr. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Spl. PP for the opposite party-State.

¶8

2. The instant criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 10.11.2003, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-11, Dhanbad, in Criminal Appeal No. 172 of 1999; whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.11.1999 , passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Dhanbad, in G.R. No.2865 of 1990 / T.R. No.103 of 1999 whereby petitioner was convicted under Section 457/511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.200/-, and in default of payment of fine an additional S.I. for two months, has been sustained.

¶9

3. The prosecution case, in brief is that the informant Baleshwar Ram who lived in Godhar Basti Beldaria in a rented tiled house was sleeping with his family in the night of 08/09/1990. It is said that at about 1.00 a.m. he heard the noise of

¶10

¶11

breaking the lock of the door. Hearing the sound when he and his wife awaken, they saw that Suresh Beldar and Mahendra Beldar were breaking the lock of his house and three boys were standing beside them to whom he did not identify. Then they raised alarm and chased the miscreants. It is further said that they identified Mahendra Beldar and Suresh Beldar and at the time of escaping one slipper of one miscreant was left there.

¶12

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners confines his argument on the question of sentence and submits that the petitioner remained in custody for 80 days and during entire period of bail he never misused the privilege of bail; as such, the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.

¶13

5. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment and submits that there is no error in the findings given by the trial Court. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside, however, the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.

¶14

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned judgments including the lower courts records and keeping in mind the limited submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the scope of revisional 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,

¶15

hereby sustained.

¶16

¶17

7. So far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1990 and 32 years have elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 32 years. Further, the petitioner also remained in custody for 80 days and during entire period of bail he never misused the privilege of bail. Further, the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part of the petitioner or any mental depravity.

¶18

8. 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.

¶19

9. Thus, the sentence passed by the trial court and upheld by the 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.3,000/- (three thousand).

¶20

10. It is made clear that petitioner shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.3,000/- (three thousand) within a period of 4 months from today before the court below, failing which they shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court.

¶21

11. With the aforesaid observation, direction and modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision application stands disposed of.

¶22

¶23

12. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of

¶24

his bail bond, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.

¶25

13. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the court below and also to the petitioner through the officer-incharge of concerned police station.

¶26

14. Let the lower court record be sent back to the court

¶27

concerned forthwith.

¶28

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶29

Pramanik/

Mahendra Beldar v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Beldar 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

Raju Paswan Vs State of Jharkhand

Sarif Mian And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Ram Narayan Dwivedi And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Raghubir Singh Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Subol Mandal And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Bijai Bind And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand