Partly allowed

Manoj Rai v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC22 Nov 2022Cr.Rev./601/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Cr. Revision No. 601 of 2009, the High Court of Jharkhand sustained the conviction of the petitioner but modified the sentence. Considering the long delay since the 2005 incident and the hardship faced by the sole earning member of the family, the Court ordered payment of a fine in lieu of the remaining jail term.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- within four months to be discharged from jail liability; otherwise, he would serve the remaining sentence.

Manoj Rai Vs State of Jharkhand — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Revision No. 601 of 2009

¶4

------Manoj Rai ….. …. Petitioner Versus

¶5

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

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶7

¶8

For the Petitioner :Mr. Jitendra Nath, Adv. For the Opposite Party-State :Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, APP

¶9

04/22.11.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 25.06.2009 passed by learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No.69 of 2009; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.4.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ranchi, corresponding to G.R.No.2711 of 2005, T.R.No.153 of 2009; whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 279, 337 and 304A IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for Six months, Six months and two years for the offence 279, 337 and 304A IPC respectively; has been affirmed and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

¶11

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer for modifying the sentence for the period already undergone as the case is of the year 2005 and the petitioner has faced the rigors of litigation for last 17 years and he also remained in custody for about 42 days and he is only earning member of his family. As such, at this stage sending him back to jail even for short period will hamper his entire family; as such some leniency may be granted by modifying the sentence for the period already undergone or in lieu of fine.

¶12

4. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 supported the judgments and submits that there is no error in the finding given by the courts below. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside, however the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

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.

¶16

6. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 2005 and about 17 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 17 years. It is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail also remained in custody for about 42 days.

¶17

7 . 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.

¶18

8. 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 the payment of fine of Rs. 20,000/-.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

13. Let the lower court records of both the cases be sent to the court concerned forthwith.

¶24

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶25

Fahim /-

Manoj Rai v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Rai 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

Bhola Sharma Vs State of Jharkhand

Sita Ram Sah Vs State of Jharkhand

Himanshu Pandey And Ors. Vs State of Jhakhand

Balvinder Pal Singh Math Balvinder Pd.Singh Vs Manjeet Kour Manju

Shivlal Singh And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Pushpa Devi And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

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

Bhola Sharma Vs State of Jharkhand

Sita Ram Sah Vs State of Jharkhand

Himanshu Pandey And Ors. Vs State of Jhakhand

Balvinder Pal Singh Math  Balvinder Pd.Singh Vs Manjeet Kour  Manju

Shivlal Singh And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Pushpa Devi And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Balvinder Pal Singh Math Balvinder Pd.Singh Vs Manjeet Kour Manju