Partly allowed

Praveen Kumar Praveen Kumar Dubey v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Apr 2022Cr.Rev./131/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Coram Dee ROCK, J. A criminal revision application against convictions under Section 377/511 IPC was disposed of. The High Court sustained the conviction but modified the sentence, ordering the petitioner to undergo only the period of remand already suffered, and discharged him from bail bond liability, considering the passage of time and rigors of litigation.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to the period already undergone; petitioner discharged from bail bond liability.

Praveen Kumar Praveen Kumar Dubey… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Revision No. 131 of 2004

¶4

¶5

Praveen Kumar @ Praveen Kumar Dubey

¶6

….. …. Petitioner

¶7

Versus The State of Jharkhand. ….. ….Opposite Party

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶9

¶10

For the Petitioner :Mr. S.Thakur, Adv. For the Opposite Party :APP

¶11

04/07.04.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 24.1.2004 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No.92 of 2003; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.09.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, in G.R. No.390/02, T.R. No.559 of 2003; whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo Three years R.I for the offence under Section 377/511 IPC; has been affirmed and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

¶13

3. The prosecution case in short is that on 23.4.2002 informant’s nephew, namely, Sawan Kumar aged about 8 years had gone to purchase exercise book from nearby shop and while he was returning petitioner caught hold him and was trying to commit some unnatural offence with Sawan Kumar. On hearing scream, the informant along with other came there and the accused on seeing them fled away from there.

¶14

On the basis of the written report Sector IV P.S.Case No.49/02 was registered and after investigation police submitted charge-sheet. Accordingly, charge was framed against the petitioner for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶15

4. At the outset, Mr. S. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the petitioner is aged about 42 years and also remained in custody for 681 days; as

¶16

¶17

such, he is confining his prayer only on the question of sentence and since the petitioner is now middle aged person; sending him back to jail at this stage even for short period will hamper the entire family as well as his carrier; as such the sentence may be modified for the period already undergone.

¶18

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.

¶19

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 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.

¶20

7. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 2002 and about 20 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 20 years. It is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail. Further, the petitioner remained in custody for 681 days almost two years.

¶21

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 already undergone.

¶22

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.

¶23

¶24

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

¶25

11. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

Fahim /-

¶29

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

Praveen Kumar Praveen Kumar Dubey v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Kumar Praveen Kumar Dubey 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

Punu Mandal And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Savera Biwi Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.