Partly allowed

Ram Brichh Singh v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC20 Apr 2022Cr.Rev./28/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision against affirmed conviction under IPC Sections 324 and 326, the High Court of Jharkhand sustained the conviction but modified the sentence to the period already undergone, discharging the petitioner from bail bond liability.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to period undergone; petitioner discharged from liability of bail bond; order communicated to courts and petitioner.

Ram Brichh Singh Vs State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 28 of 2004

Ram Brichh Singh

Versus

The State of Jharkhand. ..... Opposite Party

¶7

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶9

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Jai Prakash, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, APP

¶11

¶12

04/Dated: 20^th April, 2022

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

¶14

2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 23.10.2003 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-III, Chatra, in Cr. Appeal No. 18 of 1993; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.01.1993 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Chatra, in G.R. No. 403 of 1986 (T.R. No. 1020 of 93); whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Sections 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and 3 years respectively and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-, has been affirmed.

¶15

3. The prosecution case in short is that on 27.07.1986 the informant was constructing “MERH” in the paddy field. The petitioner and Lakhan Singh came there and assaulted the informant. According to the informant the incident took place because of the long standing enemity between the parties.

¶16

4. At the outset, Jai Prakash, learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner is not a habitual offender. The

¶17

-2-

¶18

petitioner has also undergone 105 days imprisonment and now the petitioner is an aged person. As such, he is confining his prayer only on the question of sentence as the petitioner is an aged person and sending him back to jail at this stage even for short period will hamper the entire family.

¶19

5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the contention of the petitioner and submits that there is concurrent finding and as such, no interference is required. 6. After going through the impugned judgments 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 judgments 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 1986 and 35 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 35 years. The petitioner also remained in custody for 105 days. Further, it is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail. In addition, the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part of the petitioner or any mental depravity.

¶21

-3-

¶22

8. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the appellant/convict back to prison; rather interest of justice would be sufficed if the sentence is modified to period already undergone.

¶23

9. Thus, the sentence passed by the learned trial Court and upheld by the learned appellate Court is hereby modified to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶29

Amardeep/

Ram Brichh Singh v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Brichh Singh 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

Jayanti Kundu D/O Late Madan Chandra Day and W/O Sri Nirup Kumdu Vs State of Bihar

Niranjan Minz Vs the State of Jharkhand

Salim Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand Th.Gujar

Niwaran Mandal Vs State of Jharkhand

Sehikh Sakail Ahmad Sakil Ahmad Vs State of Jharkhand

Bimal Kumar Chakraborty 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

Jayanti Kundu D/O Late Madan Chandra Day and W/O Sri Nirup Kumdu Vs State of Bihar

Niranjan Minz Vs the State of Jharkhand

Salim Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand Th.Gujar

Niwaran Mandal Vs State of Jharkhand

Sehikh Sakail Ahmad  Sakil Ahmad Vs State of Jharkhand

Bimal Kumar Chakraborty Vs State of Jharkhand

Sehikh Sakail Ahmad Sakil Ahmad Vs State of Jharkhand