In a criminal revision under Section 387 IPC, the court sustained the conviction but modified the sentence, discharging the petitioner from bail liability due to the lapse of time and lack of further imprisonment necessity.
Sentence modified to the period undergone; petitioner discharged from bail liability.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 1079 of 2003
SEHIKH SAKAIL AHMAD @ SAKIL AHMAD ..… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party
….. Opp. Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Ms. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P.
04/20.04.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties through
V.C.
2. This criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 19.09.2003 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in Criminal Appeal No. 120/98, dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.08.1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-Ist Class, Lohardaga in G.R. Case No. 15/96, whereby the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for offence punishable under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case in brief is based upon the written report of Ram Ayodhya Singh, the J.E. Minor Irrigation that on 11.01.1996 at about 2.00 P.M. that the informant Ram Ayodhya Singh, Junior Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Senha Sub-Division, district Lohardaga has visited Patratu Check Dam Project along with Dilip Kumar on a motor cycle. After arrival at the spot, accused Sheikh Shakil Ahmad demanded Rs.1,500/as Rangdari Tax and on refusal accused Sehikh Shakil Ahmad forcibly took out Rs.700/- from the pocket of the informant. Dilip Kumar intervened and protested on which he was assaulted by accused with fists and slaps.
4. At the outset, Mr. Bijay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not a habitual offender and the allegation is minor in nature, inasmuch as, learned trial court punished him
-2-
only for two years. The Petitioner remained in custody for about 134 days. As such, he has confined his prayer only on the question of sentence as the occurrence is of the year 1996 and the petitioner is now an aged person and sending him back to jail at this stage even for a short period will hamper the entire family; as such the sentence may be modified for the period already undergone.
5. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment and submits that there is no error in the finding given by the Trial Court. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside, however, the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.
6. After going through the impugned judgment including the lower court records and keeping in mind the limited submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the scope of revision jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings of the court below and as such the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby, sustained.
7. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1996 and 26 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 26 years. It is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail. Further, the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part of the petitioner or any mental depravity and he also remained in custody for about 134 days.
8. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner/convict back to prison; rather interest of justice would be sufficed if the sentence is modified for the period undergone.
9. Thus, the sentence passed by the court below is hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioner-
-3-
SEHIKH SAKAIL AHMAD @ SAKIL AHMAD is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone.
10. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bond. 11. With the aforesaid observations and modification in sentence only, the instant revision application is disposed of. 12. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the court below and also to the petitioner through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station.
13. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
sm/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court's conviction holding should be sustained or set aside.
Whether the other end of the sentence passed against the petitioner should be modified.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SEHIKH SAKAIL AHMAD @ SAKIL AHMAD
The State of Jharkhand
DEEPAK ROSHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
