Partly allowed

Sk.Shahid Ali And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC12 Jan 2023Cr.Rev./1065/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision against conviction under Section 498A IPC, the High Court affirmed the lower courts' finding of guilt but modified the sentence, discharging the surviving petitioner from further liability as he had suffered the rigors of the sentence already.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner Sk. Shahid Ali is sentenced to undergo imprisonment only for the period already undergone and is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.

Sk.Shahid Ali And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Revision No. 1065 of 2006

¶4

Sk. Shahid Ali

¶5

Sk. Rahmat Ali

¶6

Kairul Nisha @ Khairun Nisha ….. Petitioners Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party

¶8

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶10

¶11

For the Petitioners : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, APP For the Complainant : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate

¶12

-------- 07/ 12.01.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

2. The instant revision application is directed against the

¶14

judgment dated 19.09.2006, passed by learned 6^th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, whereby the Cr. Appeal No. 39 of 2005, preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.02.2005 in C.P. Case No. 959 of 2000, corresponding to T.R. No. 66 of 2005, passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Dhanbad, whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.1000/- each under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, has been affirmed.

¶15

3. At the outset, it has been informed by the office that this file has been reconstructed along with L.C.R. with the help of ICONMA.

¶16

4. Pursuant to the order dated 23.08.2022 notices were issued to the petitioners as well as complainant informing them about the pendency of this case.

¶17

¶18

5. A counter affidavit dated 13.09.2022 has been filed on

¶19

behalf of the opposite party/State stating at paragraph No.5 that petitioner No. 2 & 3 have died.

¶20

6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the instant criminal revision application is dismissed as abated against petitioner Nos. 2 & 3.

¶21

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this case is of the year 2000 and he confines his argument on the question of sentence as the petitioner No.1-Sk. Shahid Ali remained in custody for about 403 days. He further submits that now the petitioner-Sk. Shahid Ali is middle aged person and during entire period of bail, he never misused the privilege of bail, as such the sentence may be modified for the period already undergone.

¶22

8. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment and submits that there is no error in the findings given by the Courts below; as such, the conviction cannot be set aside.

¶23

9. Having heard 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 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.

¶24

10. So far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from

¶25

¶26

record that the incident is of the year 2000 and 22 years have elapsed and the petitioner No.1 must have suffered the rigors of litigation for all these years. Further, petitioner No.1-Sk. Sahid Ali is now middle aged person remained in custody for about 403 days and during entire period of bail he never misused the privilege of bail.

¶27

11. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the surviving petitioner back to prison and interest of justice would be sufficed that 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.

¶28

12. With the aforesaid observation and modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision application stands disposed of.

¶29

13. The petitioner No.1-Sk. Shahid Ali shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bond.

¶30

14. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the court

¶31

below.

¶32

15. It is relevant to mention here that since this file has been reconstructed along with L.C.R. with the help of ICONMA, as such let the copy of the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.

¶33

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶34

Pramanik/

Sk.Shahid Ali And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sk.Shahid Ali And Ors. 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

Lakhi Ram Marandi Vs State of Jharkhand

Chhola Purty Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Gajanand Agarwal Vs State of Jharkhand

Panchu Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Shanti Bhushan Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Jhablu Singh Ramesh 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

Lakhi Ram Marandi Vs State of Jharkhand

Chhola Purty Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Gajanand Agarwal Vs State of Jharkhand

Panchu Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Shanti Bhushan Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Jhablu Singh  Ramesh Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Jhablu Singh Ramesh Singh Vs State of Jharkhand