Partly allowed

Md.Samim Nepali Mian v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC23 Nov 2022Cr.Rev./924/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court of Jharkhand affirmed the lower courts' judgment of conviction but modified the sentence. The Court held that given the prolonged period of litigation and custody, serving the remaining sentence would serve no fruitful purpose, and thus the convict was discharged from bail liability.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to reflect the period already undergone; petitioner discharged from liability of bail bonds.

Md.Samim Nepali Mian Vs State of Jharkhand — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 924 of 2009

¶3

Md. Samim Nepali Mian ….. …. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

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

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶7

------For the Petitioner :Mr. S. K. Murtty, Adv. For the Opposite Party-State :Mr. M. K. Mishra, APP

¶8

04/23.11.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 11.09.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-VII, Giridih in Criminal Appeal No.36 of 2009/T.R.No.02 of 2009; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.04.2009 passed by the learned J.M, 1^st Class, Giridih, corresponding to G.R. No.120/2007, T.R. No.424/2009; whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 394 IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of Three years; has been affirmed and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

¶10

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that save and except this case no case has been instituted against the petitioner and he confines his prayer for modifying the sentence for the period already undergone as the case is of the year 2007 and the petitioner has faced the rigors of litigation for last 15 years and he also remained in custody for about 818 days. 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.

¶11

4. Learned counsel for the State 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. However, he fairly submits that as per record there is no criminal antecedent of the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

5. After going through the impugned judgment including the lower court records and keeping in mind the 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.

¶14

6. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 2007 and about 15 years have elapsed and the petitioner must has suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 15 years. It is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail and he also remained in custody for about 818 days.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

9 . With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision application is disposed of and the petitioner is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.

¶18

10. 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.

¶19

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

¶20

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶21

Fahim/-

Md.Samim Nepali Mian v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md.Samim Nepali Mian 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Manoj Rai Vs State of Jharkhand

Shivlal Singh And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Gomlal Sharma Vs State of Jharkhand

Liladhar Mandal Vs State of Jharkhand

Taleem Khan Taslim Khan 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

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

Manoj Rai Vs State of Jharkhand

Shivlal Singh And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Gomlal Sharma Vs State of Jharkhand

Liladhar Mandal Vs State of Jharkhand

Taleem Khan  Taslim Khan Vs State of Jharkhand

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

Taleem Khan Taslim Khan Vs State of Jharkhand