Partly allowed

Ranthu Singh And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Apr 2022Cr.Rev./1078/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two criminal revisions, the High Court upholds the conviction of five petitioners for dacoity but modifies the rigorous imprisonment sentences to fines of Rs. 5,000 each, considering the elapsed time and detention periods.

What did the court decide?

Impugned convictions sustained; sentence of rigorous imprisonment modified to payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/- each within four months.

Ranthu Singh And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1022 of 2003

¶3

Ram Ratan Gope ….. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party

¶6

With Cr. Revision No. 1078 of 2003

¶7

Ranthu Singh

¶8

Bali Singh

¶9

Raghu Oraon

¶10

Jugu Manjhi ….. Petitioners

¶11

Versus

¶12

The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party

¶13

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶15

¶16

For the Petitioners : Mr. Amit Kr. Choubey, Adv. (In both cases) For the State : Ms. Snehlika Bhagat, APP (In both cases)

¶17

¶18

07/ 11.04.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

2. Since both these criminal revision applications arises out of common judgment, as such they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

¶20

3. Both applications are directed against the judgment and order dated 30.07.2003, passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla, in Criminal Appeal No. 64/1985; whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 16.04.1985 , passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Gumla in S.T. No. 65 of 1981, whereby petitioners were found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years, and the petitioner Bali Singh was also found guilty

¶21

¶22

under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code and was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and sentences against Bali Singh ordered to run concurrently, has been sustained.

¶23

4. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant namely Meghnath Singh had gone to bazar on the alleged date of occurrence along with his first wife. The informant’s daughter namely Dewanti and second wife Tara and his mother were in the house. The informant returned back from the market at about 3 p.m. At that time 4-5 persons entered inside the house and they also threatened them not to raise hulla. Some persons entered inside the house and started assaulting his second wife with knife, fist and slaps. The informant identified one of dacoit as Fagu Lohra who removed the bag of cartridges of the informant and handed over it to another accused namely Bali Singh. The informant also identified other two persons who were standing near him as Shiv Pratap Sahi and another miscreant as Ram Ratan Gope. The informant also identified one another accused as Raghu Oraon. After some time Jugu Manjhi son in law of covillager Bitna Turi also came with one another person to whom the informant also identified. The informant has stated that all the accused person removed the articles from the house along with gun and cartridges. After committing the dacoity the dacoits fled away towards village but the slipper of Ram Ratan Gope was left

¶24

¶25

there. The dacoits had assaulted the second wife of the informant with fist and slaps and they also fired twice. The informant had also claimed to identify them.

¶26

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners confines his argument on the question of sentence and submits that the petitioner No.1 (in Cr. Rev. No.1022/2003) remained in custody for 196 days and petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4 (in Cr. Rev. No.1078/2003), remained in custody for 1000 days, 175 days, 176 days and 477 days, respectively and during entire period of bail they never misused the privilege of bail; as such, the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.

¶27

6. 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.

¶28

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned judgments including the lower courts record and keeping in mind the limited submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners 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, hereby sustained.

¶29

8. So far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from

¶30

¶31

record that the incident is of the year 1980 and 41 years have elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 41 years. Further, petitioner No.1 (in Cr. Rev. No.1022/2003) remained in custody for 196 days and petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4 (in Cr. Rev. No.1078/2003), remained in custody for 1000 days, 175 days, 176 days and 477 days, respectively and during entire period of bail they never misused the privilege of bail.

¶32

9. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners back to prison; rather interest of justice would be sufficed if the sentence is modified in lieu of fine.

¶33

10. Thus, the sentence passed by the trial court and upheld by the 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 fine of Rs.5,000/- each.

¶34

11. It is made clear that petitioners shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.5,000/- each 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 court below.

¶35

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

¶36

13. The petitioners shall be discharged from the liability of

¶37

¶38

their bail bond, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.

¶39

14. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the

¶40

court below and also to the petitioners through the officer-incharge of concerned police station.

¶41

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

¶42

concerned forthwith.

¶43

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶44

Pramanik/

Ranthu Singh And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranthu Singh And Ors. 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

Arun Chandra Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bansi Lal Hazam Vs State of Jharkhand

Praveen Kumar Praveen Kumar Dubey Vs State of Jharkhand

Jamuna Sao Vs State of Jharkhand

Ram Ratan Gope Vs State of Jharkhand

Ramesh Prasad Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

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

Arun Chandra Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bansi Lal Hazam Vs State of Jharkhand

Praveen Kumar  Praveen Kumar Dubey Vs State of Jharkhand

Jamuna Sao Vs State of Jharkhand

Ram Ratan Gope Vs State of Jharkhand

Ramesh Prasad  Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Praveen Kumar Praveen Kumar Dubey Vs State of Jharkhand

Ramesh Prasad Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.