Partly allowed

Shrawan Karmkar And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC25 Apr 2022Cr.Rev./398/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court sustained the conviction of petitioners under IPC 342, 325, and 379 but modified the sentence due to 28 years of proceedings. Instead of further imprisonment, the petitioners were sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1,000 each or serve the remaining term if the fine is not paid.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners sentenced to fine of Rs. 1,000 each instead of remaining imprisonment; discharged from bail bond liability subject to fine payment.

Shrawan Karmkar 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. 398 of 2004

¶3

Shrawan Karmkar

¶4

Jeewan Karmkar

¶5

Gopal Karmkar

¶6

Haldhar Karmkar

¶7

Shamru Karmkar ….. Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party

¶10

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶12

¶13

For the Petitioners : Mr. M.B. Lal, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. V.S. Sahay, APP

¶14

¶15

07/ 25.04.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

2. The instant revision application has been preferred challenging the judgment dated 20.11.2003, passed by the learned X^th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Criminal Appeal No. 158 of 1999; whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.09.1999 , passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Dhanbad, in G.R. Case No.12 of 1994/T.R. No.50 of 1999, whereby petitioners were convicted under Sections 342, 325 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and three years under Sections 342 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code, respectively and the petitioner No.1-Shrawan Karmkar was further sentenced to undergo RI for six months under Section 379 IPC and ordered that all the sentences for all the petitioners shall run concurrently, has been sustained.

¶17

¶18

3. The prosecution case is based upon the written report (Ext.2) of P.W. No.6, Mahanand Mahato, informant of the case, stating therein that he is a watchman of Shyam Sundar Singh’s “Bhatta” and on 29.12.1993 at about 10 P.M., while he was coming from his duty having a three cell torch in his hand reached near the house of Haldar Karmkar. The said Haldhar Karmkar came out from his house with hockey sticks in his hands and assaulted badly telling it is revenge of filthy languages used three months before. During the same time other accused namely Mangaru Karmakar, Gopal Karmakar, Sharwan Karmkar and Jeeban Karmakar and Haldhar Karmakar came there and also assaulted with fist and slaps. Jeeban Karmkar having rod in his hand and all the accused persons badly assaulted the informant. Anyhow informant raised hulla and fled and reached near the house of Chandu Mahato, where accused also came, assaulted and dragged him towards their house. During the course of assault accused Sharwan took a H.M.T. wrist watch and three cell torch from the possession of informant and the matter was reported to the police on 1.1.94 and on the basis of the same the case was registered and after investigation charges were framed and to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶19

4. Mr. M.B. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioners confines his argument on the question of sentence and submits that the petitioners remained in custody for about 145 days and

¶20

¶21

during entire period of bail they never misused the privilege of bail; as such, the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.

¶22

5. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment and submits that there is no error in the findings given by the trial Court. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside, however, the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.

¶23

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, hereby sustained.

¶24

7. So far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1993 and 28 years have elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 28 years. Further, the petitioners remained in custody for about 145 days and during entire period of bail they never misused the privilege of bail. Further, the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part of the petitioners or any mental depravity.

¶25

8. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners back

¶26

¶27

to prison; rather interest of justice would be sufficed if the sentence is modified in lieu of fine.

¶28

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, subject to the payment of fine of Rs.1,000/- (one thousand) each.

¶29

10. It is made clear that petitioners shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.1,000/-(one thousand) each within a period of 4 months from today before the court below, failing which they shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned court below.

¶30

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

¶31

12. The petitioners shall be discharged from the liability of their bail bond, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.

¶32

13. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the court below and also to the petitioners through the officer-incharge of concerned police station.

¶33

14. Let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.

¶34

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶35

Pramanik/

Shrawan Karmkar And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrawan Karmkar 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

Jai Krishan Mahto And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Tipu Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Madan Lal Rawani Vs State of Jharkhand

Nand Kishore Panjiyara And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Sant Bahadur Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Binay Kumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand