Partly allowed

Bablu Prajapati v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Nov 2022Cr.Rev./537/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Cr. Revision No. 537 of 2009, the High Court of Jharkhand upheld the conviction under Section 394 IPC but modified the sentence, ordering the petitioner to serve the period already undergone subject to payment of a fine of Rs. 20,000.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to serve period already undergone subject to payment of fine of Rs. 20,000 within 4 months; bail discharged upon compliance.

Bablu Prajapati Vs State of Jharkhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Revision No. 537 of 2009

¶4

--------Bablu Prajapati ..… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. J.J.Sanga, Adv. For the State : Mr. P.D.Agrawal, Spl.PP ---------

¶10

05/Dated: 17^th November, 2022

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 02.04.2009 passed by learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in Cr. Appeal No. 11 of 2009; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.12.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Ranchi in G.R. Case No. G.R. No. 2774 of 2006 (T.R. No. 11 of 2008) arising out of Chano P.S. Case No. 82 of 2006 dated 11.08.2006; whereby the petitioner was convicted under 394 IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine R.I. for 3 months; Appellate Court sustained the conviction, however, reduce the sentences to 2 ½ years and further reduces to fine Rs. 2,000/- and in default of making payment of fine the imprisonment for more one month and appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly confines his argument on the question of sentence on the ground that the instant case is of the year of 2006 and about 16 years

¶14

¶15

have elapsed since then and the petitioner must have suffered the mental agony for ongoing litigation. He further submits that this is the only case filed against the petitioner and there is no other criminal antecedent against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is a middle aged person and is the sole earning member for his family and also remained in custody for about 332 days and has never misused the privilege of bail; as such some leniency may be granted by this Court and sentence may be modified to period already undergone and fine amount may be reduced.

¶16

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.

¶17

After going through the impugned judgments including the lower court records and keeping in mind the limited submissions of the learned counsel for the parties 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.

¶18

However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 2006

¶19

¶20

and 16 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 18 years. The petitioner remained in custody for about 332 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 in lieu of fine.

¶22

Thus, the sentence passed by the trial Court and modified by the appellate court is, hereby, further modified to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone, subject to the payment of fine of Rs. 20,000/-.

¶23

It is made clear that the petitioner shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs. 20,000/- within a period of 4 months from today before the D.L.S.A, Ranchi; failing which he shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned court below.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bond subject to fulfilment of aforesaid condition.

¶27

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the courts below and Secretary DLSA, Ranchi and also to the petitioner through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station.

¶28

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

¶29

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶30

Amardeep/

Bablu Prajapati v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bablu Prajapati 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

Panchu Ravidas Vs the State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary Human Resources Department

Dani Devi Vs The Central Coalfields Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director And Ors.

Bikram Singh Vs Forest

Bhagwan Das Sonar Vs State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Ramani And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Md.Kalam And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand