Allowed

Punu Mandal And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Apr 2022Cr.Rev./128/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court affirmed the conviction for offenses under Sections 323 and 326 IPC but modified the sentence of imprisonment to a fine, considering the petitioners' advanced age and the long delay since the incident.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment modified to a fine of Rs. 5000/- payable by Petitioner No.2 within 4 months; otherwise, they must serve remaining sentence. Petitioners discharged from bail bonds.

Punu Mandal And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Revision No. 128 of 2004

¶4

¶5

Punu Mondal 2. Tustu Mondal ….. …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand. ….. ….Opposite Party

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶7

------For the Petitioner :Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, Adv. For the Opposite Party :Mr. Tarun Kumar, APP

¶8

04/07.04.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 20.11.2003 passed by learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Jamtara in Criminal Appeal No.112 of 99/7 of 2003; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.12.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class at Jamtara, in G.R. No.287/91, T.R. No.70 of 99; whereby the petitioners were convicted and petitioner No.1 sentenced to undergo three months R.I. for the offence under Sections 323/34 IPC and petitioner No.2 sentenced to undergo three years R.I. with a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under sections 326/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine the petitioner No.2 shall be further liable to undergo R.I. for three months; has been affirmed and the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed.

¶10

3. The prosecution case in short is that on 15.8.91 she had gone to see her agriculture land at kanali Baihar where paddy was grown, when she saw that the accused persons damage the paddy field then the informant tried to prevent them but the accused persons assaulted her.

¶11

On the basis of the fardbeyan Narayanpur P.S. Case No.33 of 991 was registered and after investigation police submitted charge-sheet. Accordingly, charge was framed against the petitioners for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and finally they found guilty.

¶12

¶13

4. At the outset, Mr. S. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were not habitual offender and the allegation is not serious in nature. Now the petitioners are aged about 58 years and 68 years respectively and also remained in custody for 34 days; as such, he is confining his prayer only on the question of sentence and since the petitioners are now an aged persons; sending them back to jail at this stage even for short period will hamper the entire family; as such the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.

¶14

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

¶15

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 petitioners and also the scope of 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, sustained.

¶16

7. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1991 and about 31 years have elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 31 years. It is not stated that the petitioners have 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 also remained in custody for 34 days.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

9. 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. 5000/- and the same shall be paid by the petitioner No.2.

¶20

10 . It is made clear that petitioner No.2 shall pay the aforesaid fine within a period of 4 months from today before the court below, Jamtara; failing which he shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned Trial Court.

¶21

11. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision application is disposed of.

¶22

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

¶23

13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below and also to the petitioners through the officerin-charge of concerned police station.

¶24

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

¶25

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶26

Fahim /-

Punu Mandal And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punu Mandal And Anr. 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

Mahendra Beldar Vs State of Jharkhand

Raghubir Singh Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Subol Mandal And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Bansi Lal Hazam Vs State of Jharkhand

Praveen Kumar Praveen Kumar Dubey Vs State of Jharkhand

Savera Biwi 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

Mahendra Beldar Vs State of Jharkhand

Raghubir Singh Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Subol Mandal And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Bansi Lal Hazam Vs State of Jharkhand

Praveen Kumar  Praveen Kumar Dubey Vs State of Jharkhand

Savera Biwi Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Praveen Kumar Praveen Kumar Dubey Vs State of Jharkhand