Partly allowed

Govind Lohar v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Nov 2022Cr.Rev./365/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of Jharkhand High Court discharged three petitioners convicted under s.394 IPC who had spent nearly two years in custody. Instead of reimprisonment, the sentence was modified to payment of a Rs.5,000 fine within four months.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to payment of fine of Rs.5,000 within 4 months; petitioners discharged upon payment, otherwise liable to serve remainder of sentence.

Govind Lohar Vs State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No.361 of 2007 Sonu Kumar Tiu ..… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp.Party With Criminal Revision No. 365 of 2007 Govind Lohar ..… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp.Party With Criminal Revision No. 874 of 2007 Madhukar Lal ..… Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand ….. Opp.Party --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------For the Petitioner : Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, A.P.P. (In Cr. Rev.361 of 2007 & Cr.Rev.365 of 2007) ---------

¶2

06/04.11.2022 As per service report, sole petitioner of Cr.Rev. No. 874 of 2007 has left the place of his address.

¶3

2. No affidavit regarding whereabouts of the petitioners, as directed by this court, is on record, however, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has instruction in these cases.

¶4

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. All these criminal revision applications are directed against the common judgment dated 20.11.2006 passed by the Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2006, Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 2006 and Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2006 respectively dismissing the appeals and upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.04.2006, passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Chaibasa in G.R. Case No. 478 of 2004, corresponding to T.R. No. 14 of 2006, whereby the petitioners have been convicted u/s 394 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years along with a fine of Rs.3000/- each and in default of payment of fine, the petitioners were directed to serve S.I. for a further period of six months.

¶5

-2-

¶6

5. The prosecution case in brief is that on 29.10.2004, petitioners entered the shop cum house of the informant and tried to break open the box containing sale proceeds and when the informant woke up they tried to strangulate him. On hearing the shout of the informant the petitioners fled away and on the basis of fardbayan of the informant the police submitted chargesheet after investigation.

¶7

6. At the outset, Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not habitual offenders. Further, petitioner in Cr.Rev. 361 of 2007 remained in custody for about 736 days, Petitioner in Cr.Rev. 365 of 2007 remained in custody for about 664 days and Petitioner in Cr.Rev. 874 of 2007 also remained in custody for about 417 days. He further submits that there is no criminal antecedent of the petitioners. As such, he has confined his prayer only on the question of sentence as the occurrence is of the year 2004 and the petitioners are now middle 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.

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

-3-

¶11

and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby, sustained.

¶12

9. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 2004 and 18 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 petitioner in Cr.Rev. 361 of 2007 remained in custody for about 736 days, Petitioner in Cr.Rev. 365 of 2007 for about 664 days and Petitioner in Cr.Rev. 874 of 2007 for about 417 days.

¶13

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.

¶14

11. Thus, the sentence passed by the court below 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.5,000/- each.

¶15

12. The petitioners shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.5,000/- within a period of four months from today before the Secretary, D.L.S.A. Chaibasa, Singhbhum West, failing which they shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court. 13. The petitioners shall be discharged from the liability of their bail bonds subject to the fulfillment of the aforesaid condition.

¶16

14. With the aforesaid observations and modification in sentence only, the revision applications are disposed of.

¶17

-4-

¶18

15. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the courts below, the Secretary, D.L.S.A. Chaibasa and also to the petitioners through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station.

¶19

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

¶20

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶21

sm/

Govind Lohar v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Lohar 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

Madhukar Lal Vs State of Jharkhand

Jai Raj Prasad Vs Central Bureau of Investigatio

Biswas Kerketta Vs State of Jharkhand