High Court of Jharkhand dismissed two criminal revisions. One set abated due to death of petitioners. For remaining petitioners, conviction was upheld but sentence modified to fine only after 36 years elapsed.
Sentence modified to payment of fine of Rs.2000 each for remaining period; 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No.890 of 2003
Versus
Criminal Revision No.1052 of 2003
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
--------For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Mahua Palit, A.P.P.
07/05.04.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Mrs. Mahua Palit, learned A.P.P. submits that a report has been received from the concerned police station, which transpires that both the petitioners of Criminal Revision No. 1052 of 2003, namely Bijai Bind and Lutan Mandal have died.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners supports the aforesaid fact and submits that now the case has become infructuous.
4. In view of the aforesaid fact, the instant application is dismissed as abated against the petitioners. Cr.Revision No. 890 of 2003
5. At the outset, learned A.P.P. submits that as per report received by the concerned police station, petitioner No.s 2, 5 and 6 have died, as such the application may be dismissed against them.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner supports the aforesaid statement.
-2-
7. In view of the aforesaid fact, the instant application is dismissed as abated against Petitioner No.s 2, 5 and 6.
8. This criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 16.7.2003, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal, in Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 1989/121 of 1993, partly allowing the appeal and partly upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.05.1989 passed by the learned Senior Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal in G.R. Case No. 117 of 1986 corresponding to T.R. No. 129 of 1989, whereby the petitioners have been convicted for the offence under Sections 144 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas PetitionerBalram Mandal was convicted also under 411 of the I.P.C.. The petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 144 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for four months under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The learned Appellate Court has been pleased to acquit Petitioner-Balram Mandal from the charge u/s 411 of the I.P.C.
9. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant (informant) lodged a complaint before the learned Senior Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Rajmahal on 23.04.1986 against 11 accused persons alleging that the complainant Gaya Nath Mandal owned and possessed eleven and half Kathas of land in plot no. 1734 situated in Mauza Kasba having his palm and mango trees thereon and out of which one palm tree was cut into pieces by complainant and which was forcibly taken by the accused persons on 22.4.1986 at 10.00 to 11.00 P.M. and they kept the pieces of palm tree in the chabbar of Balram Mandal.
10. At the outset, Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not habitual offenders and the allegation is minor in nature, inasmuch as, learned trial court punished them only for four
-3-
months at the most. The Petitioners remained in custody for about 16 days. As such, he has confined is prayer only on the question of sentence as the occurrence is of the year 1986 and the petitioners are now aged person and sending them back to jail at this stage even for a short period will hamper the entire family; as such the sentence may be modified for the period already undergone.
11. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment and submits that there is no error in the finding given by the Trial Court. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside, however, the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.
12. After going through the impugned judgment including the lower court records and keeping in mind the limited submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the scope of revision jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings of the court 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. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1986 and 36 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 36 years. It is not stated that the petitioners have ever misused the privilege of bail. Further, the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the - part of the petitioners or any mental depravity and they also remained in custody for about 16 days.
14. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners/convicts back to prison; rather interest of justice would be sufficed if the sentence is modified in lieu of fine.
15. Thus, the sentence passed by the court below is hereby, modified to the extent that the Petitioner No.1.-Subol Mandal, Petitioner No. 3-Totaram Mandal, Petitioner No. 4.Ram Kishun Mandal, Petitioner No.7 Batoran Mandal and
-4-
Petitioner No.8 Balram are sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone, subject to the payment of fine of Rs.2000/each.
16. The petitioners shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.2000/- each within a period of four months from today before the court below, failing which they shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court and upheld by the appellate court.
17. The petitioners shall be discharged from the liability of their bail bonds subject to the fulfillment of the aforesaid condition.
18. With the aforesaid observations and modification in sentence only, the instant revision application is disposed of.
19. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the court below and also to the petitioner through the officer-incharge of concerned police station.
20. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
sm/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to maintain conviction finding after 36 years of litigation.
Whether to modify sentence to fine in lieu of rigorous imprisonment for aged petitioners.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Subol Mandal
Sitaram Mandal
Totaram Mandal
Ram Kishun Mandal
Anil Mandal
Bijai Bind
DEEPAK ROSHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
