Partly allowed

Sarif Mian And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 Apr 2022Cr.Rev./401/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court revision dismissed qua two deceased petitioners. Conviction of remaining petitioners under IPC Sections 148, 323/325 sustained. Sentence modified to alternative fine of Rs. 2000 each after 30 years; if unpaid, they must serve original sentences.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to payment of fine Rs. 2000 each within four months; default leads to serving original sentence.

Sarif Mian And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No.401 of 2005

¶2

¶3

Sarif Mian

¶4

Siddique Mian

¶5

Rafique Mian

¶6

Katim Mian

¶7

Samad Mian

¶8

Tala Mian

¶9

Kasim Mian

¶10

Sudum Mian @ Naimu Mian

¶11

Mohamadi Mian

¶12

..… Petitioners

¶13

Versus State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party

¶14

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶15

--------For the Petitioners : Mr. Aashish Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P.

¶16

06/01.04.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. This criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 30.03.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV (Fast Track Court) Jamtara in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2004, dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment dated 11.06.2004 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara in G.R. Case No. 333/92/T.R. Case No. 223/04, whereby the petitioners have been convicted under Sections 148, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149 I.P.C. and they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year for offence under section 148 I.P.C., R.I. for 9 months for offence under section 323/149 I.P.C. & R.I. for one year for offence u/s 324/149 I.P.C. & R.I. for one and half months for offence u/s 325/149 I.P.C. in addition to fine of Rs.500/- each and in case of default of payment of fine, they were to undergo S.I. for three months and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶17

3. The prosecution case in brief is based upon the written report submitted by Agnu Mian before the Officer inCharge, Narayanpur P.S. wherein it has been alleged that on 14.06.1992, at 6.30 a.m. (Saturday), while the informant was taking his cattle for grazing out of village Birajpur, all 09 accused persons were standing armed with Lathi, Chain etc. on Plot No.s 244 and 237 of village Birajpur and as the

¶18

-2-

¶19

informant asked them not to plough the land as there is a case pending with regard to the said plots, hot exchange of words took place and accused persons assaulted him with Lathi , sword etc. causing injuries on head. The informant fell down and on Hullah brother-in-law of the informant Aasho Mian and his son Rahim Mian & Jalaluddin Mian came for his rescue. Accused persons assaulted them causing injury on the head of Rahim Mian & the left hand of Jalaluddin Mian and thus, all the four persons sustained injury. Covillagers namely Bhelo Mian, Sohrab Mian, Ataul Mian and Jakir Mian came for their rescue and rushed them to government hospital for treatment.

¶20

4. At the outset, Mr. Aashish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Petitioner No.s 4 and 9 have died, as such he is representing only Petitioner No. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8.

¶21

5. In view of the aforesaid submission made at Bar, this revision application is dismissed qua Petitioner No. 4 and 9.

¶22

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners are not habitual offenders and the allegation is minor in nature, inasmuch as, learned trial court punished them only for one year at the most. Petitioner No. 1, 3, 5, 6 and 8 remained in custody for 65 days while Petitioner No.2 for 19 days. As such, he has confined his prayer only on the question of sentence as the occurrence is of the year 1992 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.

¶23

7. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment 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.

¶24

-3-

¶25

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.

¶26

9. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1992 and about 30 years have elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 30 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 No. 1, 3, 5, 6 and 8 also remained in custody for 65 days while Petitioner No.2 for 19 days.

¶27

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.

¶28

11. Thus, the sentence passed by the court below is hereby, modified to the extent that Petitioner No.s 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, , namely Sarif Mian, Siddique Mian, Rafique Mian, Samad Mian, Tala Mian, Kasim Mian, Sudum Mian @ Naimu Mian are sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone, subject to the payment of fine of Rs.2000/- each. 12. The petitioners above named shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.2000/- each within a period of four months from today before the court below, failing which he shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court and upheld by the appellate court.

¶29

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

¶30

-4-

¶31

14. With the aforesaid observations and modification in sentence only, the instant revision application is disposed of.

¶32

15. Let copies of this order be communicated to the court below and also to the petitioner through the officer-incharge of concerned police station.

¶33

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

¶34

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶35

sm/

Sarif Mian And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarif Mian 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Narayan Dwivedi And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Teklal Mahto And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Md. Mumtaz Sheikh Vs State of Jharkhand

Raju Paswan Vs State of Jharkhand

Mahendra Beldar Vs State of Jharkhand

Raghubir Singh Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.