Partly allowed

Radha Devi v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC21 Jun 2022Cr.Rev./986/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court upheld the conviction for an offence under Section 307 IPC but modified the sentence from rigorous imprisonment to a fine of Rs. 5,000 due to the petitioner's age and the delinquent period since the offence.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified from rigorous imprisonment to a fine of Rs. 5000 payable within 4 months; failure to pay means serving the remainder of the sentence.

Radha Devi Vs State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Revision No. 986 of 2004

Radha Devi

….. …. Petitioner

Versus

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

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶10

¶11

For the Petitioner :Mr. Md. Abdul Wahab, Adv. For the Opposite Party-State :Mr. Sanat Kr. Jha, APP

¶12

04/21.06.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 24.7.2004 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla in Criminal Appeal No.32 of 1998; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6.6.1998 passed by the learned 2^nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Gumla, in S.T. No.200 of 1994; whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 307 IPC; has been affirmed and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

¶14

3. The prosecution case in short is that the informant-Lakhan Baraik stated before the police on 28.1.1994 that prior to his marriage he was in love with the accused-Radha Devi but a few years back he was married to one Rita Devi according to the social rituals and he has children also from Rita Devi. The accused has also a son aged about 5 years and inspite of the protest by the informant the accused used to come to his house with the son and demanded maintenance from the informant. On 28.1.1994 while he was waiting in bus with his wife Rita Devi at the Bangaru Bus Stand, the accused all of a sudden gave tangi blow on his neck and in the meantime villagers snatched away the Tangi from the hands of the accused otherwise the accused would have killed him.

¶15

4. At the outset, Mr. K. K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not habitual

¶16

¶17

offender and now the petitioner is old lady aged about 52 years and she also remained in custody for 313 days; as such, he is confining his prayer only on the question of sentence and sending her back to jail at this stage even for short period will hamper the entire family; as such the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.

¶18

5. 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.

¶19

6. After going through the impugned judgment including the lower court records and keeping in mind the limited submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the scope of revision 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.

¶20

7. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1994 and about 28 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 28 years. It is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail and she also remained in custody for 313 days. Further, the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part of the petitioner or any mental depravity.

¶21

8 . Thus, this Court is 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.

¶22

9. 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. 5000/-.

¶23

¶24

10 . It is made clear that petitioner shall pay the aforesaid fine within a period of 4 months from today before the DLSA, Gumla; failing which she shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned Trial Court.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶30

Fahim /-

Radha Devi v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radha Devi 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

Ganga Ram Mahli Ganga Mahli Vs State of Jharkhand

Tapan Mitra Vs State of Jharkhand

Ram Kishun Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Ganesh Prasad Mandal Vs State of Jharkhand

Mangi Lal Ram Nishad Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Dudnath Chauhan Sitaram Singh 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

Ganga Ram Mahli  Ganga Mahli Vs State of Jharkhand

Tapan Mitra Vs State of Jharkhand

Ram Kishun Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Ganesh Prasad Mandal Vs State of Jharkhand

Mangi Lal Ram Nishad Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Dudnath Chauhan  Sitaram Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Ganga Ram Mahli Ganga Mahli Vs State of Jharkhand

Dudnath Chauhan Sitaram Singh Vs State of Jharkhand