Partly allowed

Nageshwar Paswan v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Nov 2022Cr.Rev./517/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision application challenging conviction under IPC sections 323, 341, and 354, the High Court sustained conviction but modified the sentence. The Court substituted imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000 and discharged the petitioner from bail liability, citing 22 years of litigation and custody duration.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to a fine of Rs. 10,000 instead of further imprisonment; petitioner discharged from bail liability.

Nageshwar Paswan Vs State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 517 of 2009

¶3

Nageshwar Paswan ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, APP --------

¶4

06/ 11.11.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶5

2. The instant criminal revision application is directed

¶6

against the judgment dated 16.06.2009, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Godda, whereby the Cr. Appeal No. 35 of 2008, preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.07.2008 in G.R. No. 1254 of 2000, corresponding to T.R. No. 138 of 2008, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Godda, whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 323 IPC, S.I for one month under Section 341 IPC and SI for one year under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, has been affirmed.

¶7

3. The prosecution case in brief is based upon the written statement of the informant-Rani Kumari, for which a case has been instituted against the petitioner. After investigation, police has submitted chargesheet and cognizance has been taken against the offences; for which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After trial, the petitioner was found guilty for the offences and he was convicted and his appeal was also

¶8

¶9

rejected by the learned appellate court.

¶10

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his argument on the question of sentence and submits that the petitioner remained in custody for about 109 days and he is middle aged person and during entire period of bail, he never misused the privilege of bail, as such the sentence may be modified.

¶11

5. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment and submits that there is no error in the findings given by the Courts below. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside.

¶12

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 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 judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby sustained.

¶13

7. So far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 2000 and 22 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 22 years. Further, petitioner remained in custody for about 109 days and now he is middle aged person and during entire period of bail he never misused the privilege of bail.

¶14

¶15

8. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no

¶16

fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner back to

¶17

prison and interest of justice would be sufficed by modifying the sentence in lieu of fine.

¶18

9. Thus, the sentence passed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court is hereby modified to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone subject to payment of fine of Rs.10,000/-. The amount shall be deposited before the Secretary, D.L.S.A, Godda within four months from today, failing which the petitioner will serve the rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned court below.

¶19

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

¶20

11. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bond, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid conditions.

¶21

12. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the court below, Secretary, DLSA, Godda and the petitioner through officer-in-charge of concerned police station.

¶22

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

¶23

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶24

Pramanik/

Nageshwar Paswan v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nageshwar Paswan 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

Jaipal Sahu Vs State of Jharkhand

Anirudh Pariyat And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Satrughan Pandit And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Yunus Mian Vs State of Jharkhand

Shyam Sundar Sonar Shyam Sundar Verma Vs State of Jharkhand

Sukumbati Devi Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

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

Jaipal Sahu Vs State of Jharkhand

Anirudh Pariyat And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Satrughan Pandit And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Yunus Mian Vs State of Jharkhand

Shyam Sundar Sonar  Shyam Sundar Verma Vs State of Jharkhand

Sukumbati Devi Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Shyam Sundar Sonar Shyam Sundar Verma Vs State of Jharkhand