Partly allowed

Amarjit Singh Pappu Singh v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC19 Jan 2023Cr.Rev./1039/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal revision, the High Court affirmed the conviction under Section 414 IPC but held that imprisonment should be commuted abroad for a fine of Rs. 7500 given the case's age and litigation rigors, discharging the petitioner upon payment.

What did the court decide?

Conviction sustained but sentence modified to payment of fine of Rs. 7500. Petitioner discharged from bail liability if fine paid.

Amarjit Singh Pappu Singh Vs State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1039 of 2010

¶3

Amarjit Singh @ Pappu Singh ….. …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. ….. ….Opposite Party

¶4

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶5

------For the Petitioner :Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, Adv. For the Opposite Party-State :Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, APP

¶6

09/19.01.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 01.5.2004 passed by learned 12^th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No.155 of 2000; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.11.2000 passed by the learned J.M, Dhanbad, in G.R. case no.2239/1996, T.R. No.450 of 2000; whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 414 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of two years; has been affirmed and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

¶8

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 1996. He further submits that the petitioner has faced the rigors of litigation for last 27 years and he also remained in custody for about 357 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 or in lieu of fine.

¶9

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 but he fairly admits that there is criminal antecedent of the petitioner.

¶10

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.

¶11

6. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1996 and about 27 years have elapsed

¶12

¶13

and the petitioner must has suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 27 years. It is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail and he also remained in custody for about 357 days. Further no criminal antecedent of the petitioner save and except this case.

¶14

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 in lieu of fine.

¶15

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, subject to the payment of fine of Rs.7500/-.

¶16

9 . It is made clear that petitioner shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.7,500/- within a period of 4 months from today before the D.L.S.A., Dhanbad, failing which he shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned courts below.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below, Secretary, D.L.S.A., Dhanbad and also to the petitioner through the officerin-charge of concerned police station.

¶20

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

¶21

Fahim/-

¶22

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

Amarjit Singh Pappu Singh v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarjit Singh Pappu Singh 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

Dasrath Bhuinya Vs State of Jharkhand

Md.Jamiluddin Ansari Jamil Ansari Md.Jamel Ans Vs State of Jharkhand

Baijnath Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand

Santosh Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Benjamin Horo Vs State of Jharkhand

Chandan Kumar Mishra 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

Dasrath Bhuinya Vs State of Jharkhand

Md.Jamiluddin Ansari  Jamil Ansari  Md.Jamel Ans Vs State of Jharkhand

Baijnath Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand

Santosh Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Benjamin Horo Vs State of Jharkhand

Chandan Kumar Mishra Vs State of Jharkhand

Md.Jamiluddin Ansari Jamil Ansari Md.Jamel Ans Vs State of Jharkhand