High Court of Jharkhand in a criminal revision prayed for sentence modification and discharge. Court sustained conviction for 21-year-old offences, set sentence to equivalent of time already undergone, and discharged petitioner from bail bond liability.
Sentence modified to period already undergone; petitioner discharged from bail bond liability.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 657 of 2007
Pranab Paul ….. …. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ….. ….Opposite Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Petitioner :Mr. S. K. Lal,Adv. For the Opposite Party :Mr. P.D. Agrawal, APP
07/01.11.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 31.05.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, VIth , Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No.280 of 2006; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.08.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur, corresponding to G.R. Case No.2268 of 2001/ T.R. No.1396 of 2006; whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Sections 304(A) & 427 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of One year with a fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC and to undergo R.I. for Six months for the offence under Section 427 IPC and in default of payment of fine further to undergo S.I. for two months; has been partly allowed.
The Appellate Court has partly allowed the appeal by acquitting the petitioner for the offence under Section 427 IPC and sustained the conviction for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC.
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 2001 and the petitioner has faced the rigors of litigation for last 21 years and he also remained in custody for about 29 days. Further, he is the only earning member for 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.
4. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgments and submits that there is no error in the findings
2
given by the courts below. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside, however the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.
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 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.
6. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 2001 and about 21 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 21 years. It is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail and he also remained in custody for about 29 days.
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 for the period already undergone.
8. 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.
9. With the aforesaid observations and modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision application is disposed of.
10. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.
11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below and also to the petitioner through the officer-incharge of concerned police station.
12. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Fahim/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to set aside the conviction and modify the sentence for 21 years elapsed in litigation.
Whether to discharge the petitioner and relieve him of bail bond liability.
Pranab Paul
The State of Jharkhand
DEEPAK ROSHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
