Partly allowed

Himanshu Pandey And Ors. v. State of Jhakhand

Jharkhand HC18 Nov 2022Cr.Rev./409/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed one part of the revision due to death, upheld conviction against an aged petitioner after 19 years of pendency, and modified sentence to the period already undergone.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to period already undergone; petitioner discharged from bail bond liability.

What the court decided

Himanshu Pandey And Ors. Vs State of Jhakhand — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Revision No. 409 of 2007

¶4

¶5

1.Himanshu Pandey @ Panditji. 2.Nand Kishore Lal @ Nandu Babu @ Nand Kishore @ Landu Babu. ..… Petitioners

¶6

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

¶7

--------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶8

--------For the Petitioners : Mr. Amrita Sinha, Adv. For the State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, APP

¶9

¶10

08/Dated: 18^th November, 2022

¶11

Pursuant to the order dated 25.08.2022 notices were issued to the petitioners. A service report has been received indicating therein that petitioner no. 2-namely- Nand Kishore Lal @ Nandu Babu @ Nand Kishore @ Landu Babu has died and the notice has been served upon the petitioner no.1.

¶12

In view of the aforesaid fact, the instant application is dismissed as abated against the petitioner no. 2-namelyNand Kishore Lal @ Nandu Babu @ Nand Kishore @ Landu Babu.

¶13

This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 22.02.2007, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, in Cr. Appeal No. 71 of 2006; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.05.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh, in connection with G.R. Case No. 2188 of 2003, corresponding to T.R. No. 883 of 2006; whereby

¶14

¶15

the petitioners were convicted under sections 468 and 120 B IPC and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 3000/- in default of payment of fine further sentence of one year has been imposed and under Section 120 B IPC to undergo R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 2000/-. and in default of payment of fine further sentence of 6 months each has been imposed and appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly confines her argument on the question of sentence on the ground that the instant case is of the year of 2003 and about 19 years have elapsed since then and the petitioner no.1 must have suffered the mental agony for ongoing litigation. She further submits that this is the only case filed against the petitioner and there is no other criminal antecedent against him. She further submits that the petitioner is a middle aged person and also remained in custody for about 96 days and has never misused the privilege of bail and he is not a habitual offender, as such some leniency may be granted by this Court and sentence may be modified to period already undergone.

¶17

Learned A.P.P. opposes the contention of the petitioner and submits that there is concurrent finding and as such, no interference is required though he fairly admits that there is no criminal antecedent of the petitioner.

¶18

¶19

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 revisional 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

However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 2003 and 19 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 10 years. The petitioner remained in custody for about 96 days and now he is middle aged person and sending him back to prison at this stage will hamper the entire family. 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

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

¶22

Thus, the sentence passed by the learned trial Court and upheld by the learned appellate Court is hereby

¶23

¶24

modified to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶30

Amardeep/

Himanshu Pandey And Ors. v. State of Jhakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Himanshu Pandey And Ors. v. State of Jhakhand

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

Bablu Prajapati Vs State of Jharkhand

Bhagwan Das Sonar Vs State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Ramani And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Bhola Sharma Vs State of Jharkhand

Sita Ram Sah Vs State of Jharkhand

Parwind Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand