Partly allowed

Jogendra Singh And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Jul 2022Cr.Rev./145/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Article 227, the High Court of Jharkhand modified the sentence for three petitioners convicted under Section 406 IPC, directing them to undergo only the period already served. The Court also discharged them from bail bond liability.

What did the court decide?

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

Jogendra 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. 145 of 2004

¶3

Mukhtar Singh @ Mukha

¶4

Hardeo Singh

¶5

Subindra Singh ….. Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

….. Opposite Party

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶11

¶12

For the Petitioner Nos.1&3 : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate For the Petitioner No.2 : Ms. Shalaka Srivastava, Amicus For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. V.S. Sahay, APP

¶13

¶14

06/ 06.07.2022 Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel

¶15

for the petitioner Nos. 1 & 3, Ms. Shalaka Srivastava, learned amicus for the petitioner No.2 and Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned APP for the opposite party-State.

¶16

2. The instant revision application is directed against the judgment dated 05.12.2003, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. VII, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1995, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.03.1995, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No.263 of 1992, whereby the petitioners were convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code; has been sustained.

¶17

3. The prosecution case in brief is that a complaint case has been lodged by the complainant against the petitioners under Sections 406 of the Indian penal Code. Thereafter, cognizance has

¶18

¶19

been taken against the petitioners; for which the petitioners pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After trial, the petitioners were found guilty for the offences and they were convicted. Being aggrieved, the petitioners challenged the trial court order before the appellate court. However, the same was confirmed.

¶20

4. Learned counsels for the petitioners after extensive argument ultimately confine their argument on the question of sentence and submits that the petitioners remained in custody for about 92 days and they are all now aged persons and during entire period of bail, they never misused the privilege of bail, as such lenient view may be taken by the Court and the sentence may be modified.

¶21

5. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment and submits that there is no error in the findings given by the Courts below. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside.

¶22

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 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,

¶23

hereby sustained.

¶24

¶25

7. So far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1992 and 29 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 29 years. Further, all the petitioners remained in custody for about 92 days and now all are aged persons and during entire period of bail they never misused the privilege of bail.

¶26

8. 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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

11. The petitioners shall be discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.

¶30

12. The Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Ms. Shalaka Srivastava, learned amicus for petitioner No.2 who has prepared meticulous notes on prosecution evidence.

¶31

13. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee shall reimburse Ms. Shalaka Srivastava, learned

¶32

¶33

Amicus on submission of bill(s) for this case as per the Notification dated 23.11.2017.

¶34

14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below, the Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee and the petitioners.

¶35

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

¶36

concerned forthwith.

¶37

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶38

Pramanik/

Jogendra Singh And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jogendra 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

Sushil Mahto Sushil Kr.Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand

Kiriti Mandal And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Manindar Mandal And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Narendra Nath Srivastava Vs State of Jharkhand

Wakil Ram And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Sunil Kumar Sharaf And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

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

Sushil Mahto  Sushil Kr.Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand

Kiriti Mandal And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Manindar Mandal And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Narendra Nath Srivastava Vs State of Jharkhand

Wakil Ram And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Sunil Kumar Sharaf And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Sushil Mahto Sushil Kr.Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand