Partly allowed

Biswas Kerketta v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Nov 2022Cr.Rev./215/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court upheld conviction under IPC Sections 457/307 after 32 years but modified sentence to fine. Court rejected argument to set aside conviction but commuted remaining prison term to a fine of Rs. 7,500 considering advanced age, lack of antecedents, and elapsed time.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to periods already undergone subject to fine of Rs. 7,500 each; bail discharged upon payment.

Biswas Kerketta Vs State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 1149 of 2008

¶2

Masidas Kerketta

¶3

Prakash Kerketta

¶4

..… Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party With Criminal Revision No. 215 of 2009 Biswas Kerketta ..… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party With Criminal Revision No. 165 of 2009 Jiwan Kerketta ..… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶6

¶7

For the Petitioners : Mr. B.K. Mishra, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P. (in Cr.Rev.No. 1149 of 2008) Mr. Gautam Rakesh, A.P.P. (in Cr.Rev. No. 215 of 2009 ---------

¶8

06/04.11.2022 In pursuance of notice issued to the petitioners, service report was received according to which, Petitioner No. 2 of Cr.Rev. No. 1149 of 2008 and the sole petitioner of Cr. Rev. No. 165 of 2009 have died.

¶9

2. In view of the aforesaid fact, Cr.Rev. No. 1149 of 2008 stands dismissed as abated against Petitioner No.2 and Cr.Rev.No. 165 of 2009 stands dismissed as abated.

¶10

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

4. All these criminal revision applications are directed against the judgment dated 04.08.2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1^st , Lohardaga in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2003, dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.06.2003, passed by the learned Assistant Sessions judge, Lohardaga in Sessions Trial No. 48 of 1992, whereby the petitioners have been convicted under Section 457/307 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for

¶12

-2-

¶13

three years under Section 457 of the Indian Penal code and R.I. for 5 years under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The prosecution case, as stated in the Fard-bayan of the informant dated 17.04.1990, in brief is that in the night before the day fardbayan was lodged, petitioners entered his house and attacked the informant and his son with deadly weapons like knife etc. causing injuries to them. On alarm being raised by the informant, the petitioner fled from the place of occurrence.

¶14

6. At the outset, Mr. B.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the surviving petitioners submits that the petitioners are not habitual offenders. There is no criminal antecedent of the petitioners. Further, Petitioner No.1 in Cr.Rev. 1149 of 2008 remained in custody for about 218 days and sole petitioner in Cr.Rev.215/2009 also remained in custody for about 156 days. As such, he has confined his prayer only on the question of sentence as the occurrence is of the year 1990 and the petitioners are now aged persons and sending them 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.

¶15

7. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgments and submits that there is no error in the finding given by the Trial Court but he fairly admits that as per record there is no criminal antecedent of the petitioners. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside, however, the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.

¶16

8. 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 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.

¶17

-3-

¶18

9. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1990 and 32 years have elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of litigation for all these 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 petitioners or any mental depravity and they also remained in custody for 32 days.

¶19

10. 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.

¶20

11. Thus, the sentence passed by the court below is hereby, modified to the extent that the Petitioner No.1.Masidas Kerketta of Criminal Revision No. 1149 of 2008 and sole petitioner- Biswas Kerketta of Criminal Revision No. 215 of 2009 are sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone, subject to the payment of fine of Rs.7,500/- each.

¶21

12. The petitioners shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.7,500/- each within a period of four months from today before the Secretary, D.L.S.A., Lohardaga, failing which they shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court.

¶22

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

¶23

14. With the aforesaid observations and modification in sentence only, these revision applications are disposed of. 15. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the courts below, Secretary, D.L.S.A., Lohardaga and also to the respective survive petitioners through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station.

¶24

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

¶25

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶26

sm/

Biswas Kerketta v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biswas Kerketta 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

Pranab Paul Vs State of Jharkhand

Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs State of Jharkhand

John Kerketta Vs State of Jharkhand

Govind Lohar Vs State of Jharkhand

Madhukar Lal Vs State of Jharkhand

Jai Raj Prasad Vs Central Bureau of Investigatio