Partly allowed

Sohil Yadav And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC12 Apr 2022Cr.Rev./773/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court dismissed the application against the deceased first petitioner. Regarding remaining petitioners convicted under IPC, the court sustained the conviction but modified the sentence, releasing them on the basis of time already served.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision application was dismissed against petitioner No. 1. Petitioners Nos. 2, 3 & 4 are discharged from liability of bail bonds and released to serve sentence undergone.

Sohil Yadav And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 773 of 2004

¶3

Sohil Yadav

¶4

Sachida Nand Yadav

¶5

Jay Kant Yadav

¶6

Subodh Yadav ….. Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand

¶9

Viveka Nand Sah ….. Opposite Parties

¶10

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶12

¶13

For the Petitioners : Mr. Peeyush Krishna Choudhary, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, APP

¶14

¶15

09/ 12.04.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

2. Mr. Peeyush Krishna Choudhary, learned counsel for

¶17

the petitioners submits that as per his instruction, petitioner No. 1 has died as such he is pressing this case on behalf of petitioner Nos.2, 3 & 4 only.

¶18

3. Learned APP supports the aforesaid contention and submits that the case may be dismissed as against petitioner No.1.

¶19

4. In view of the aforesaid fact, this criminal revision application is dismissed against petitioner No.1.

¶20

5. The instant criminal revision application is directed against the order dated 12.07.2004, passed by the learned VI^th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C. No.3), Godda, in Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 1999/ 02 of 2004; whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order sentence dated 13.09.1999 , passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Godda passed in G.R. No.846/96 /

¶21

¶22

T.R. No.321 of 1999, whereby petitioner No.1 was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years and the petitioner No.2 to 4 have been convicted under Section 323 IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

¶23

6. The prosecution case in brief as alleged in the FIR registered on the basis of written report of the opposite party No.2, is that on 30.10.96 at about 10 A.M. while the opposite party No.2 was going to watch the paddy field, he allegedly saw that petitioner No.3 is standing on the ridge of his field and his six buffaloes were grazing and destroying his said paddy field, upon which he (opposite party No.2) got the buffaloes out of his field and forbade the petitioner No.3, not to do so and it is further alleged that in the meantime all these petitioners came there armed with lathi and allegedly started assaulting him which caused multiple injuries upon this person.

¶24

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners confines his argument on the question of sentence and submits that the petitioners remained in custody for about 29 days and during entire period of bail they never misused the privilege of bail.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

9. 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 petitioners 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.

¶28

10. So far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1996 and 26 years have elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 26 years. Further, the petitioners remained in custody for about 29 days and during entire period of bail they never misused the privilege of bail. Further, the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part of the petitioners or any mental depravity.

¶29

11. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner Nos. 2, 3 & 4 back to prison.

¶30

12. Thus, the sentence passed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court is hereby modified to the extent that the petitioner Nos. 2, 3 & 4 are sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone.

¶31

13. With the aforesaid observation, direction, the instant

¶32

¶33

criminal revision application stands disposed of.

¶34

14. The petitioner Nos. 2, 3 & 4 shall be discharged from the liability of their bail bond.

¶35

15. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the court below and also to the petitioners through the officer-incharge of concerned police station.

¶36

16. Let the lower court record be sent back to the court

¶37

concerned forthwith.

¶38

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶39

Pramanik/

Sohil Yadav And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sohil Yadav And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

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

Jamuna Sao Vs State of Jharkhand

Ranthu Singh And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Ram Ratan Gope Vs State of Jharkhand

Suresh Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Narayan Mahato And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Dhirendra Kumar Alias Dhirendra Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.