Partly allowed

Most.Sobrani And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC2 Jan 2023Cr.Rev./208/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the Court affirmed the conviction but, due to the lapse of 38 years and suffering of petitioners, substituted imprisonment with a fine for the surviving accused, discharging them from bail liability upon payment.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to undergo period already undergone upon payment of fine Rs. 2500/- each; petitioners discharged from bail liability.

Most.Sobrani 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.208 of 2007

¶4

¶5

Mostt. Sobrani

¶6

Ram Chandra Prasad @ Chandra Mahto

¶7

Krishna Sonar

¶8

Baleshwar Mahto

¶9

Yamuna Sonar

¶10

Degan Mahto

¶11

Badri Prasad ….. …. Petitioners

¶12

Versus

¶13

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

¶14

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶15

¶16

For the Petitioner :Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush, Adv. For the Opposite Party-State :Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, APP

¶17

06/02.01.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 16.12.2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge, FTC-VII, Hazaribagh in Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2006; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2.3.2006 passed by the learned J.M., 1^st Class, Hazaribagh corresponding to G.R. No.2199/84, T.R. No.217/2006; whereby the petitioners were convicted for the offence under Section 144 and 379 IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of One year for the offence u/S 379 IPC and S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 144 IPC and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently; has been affirmed and the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed.

¶19

3. As per service report petitioner No.1 & 6 namely, Mostt. Sobvrani and Degan Mahto respectively have died. Accordingly, the instant revision application is hereby dismissed as abated against petitioner No.1 & 6 namely, Mostt. Sobrani and Degan Mahto.

¶20

4. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per record vide order dated 13.7.2007 this revision application was dismissed against petitioner no.2, namely Ram Chandra Prasad @ Chandra Mahto as such he

¶21

¶22

is pressing this application for petitioner nos.3, 4, 5 and 7 only.

¶23

Learned counsel for the surviving petitioners confines his prayer for modifying the sentence for the period already undergone as the case is of the year 1984. He further submits that the petitioners have faced the rigors of litigation for last 38 years and they also remained in custody for about 30 days. As such at this stage sending them back to jail even for short period will hamper their entire family; as such some leniency may be granted by modifying the sentence for the period already undergone. 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.

¶24

6. 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.

¶25

7. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1984 and about 38 years have elapsed and the surviving petitioners must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 38 years. It is not stated that they have ever misused the privilege of bail and they also remained in custody for about one month.

¶26

8 . In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the surviving petitioners/convicts back to prison; rather interest of justice would be sufficed if the sentence is modified in lieu of fine.

¶27

¶28

9. Thus, the sentence passed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court is, hereby, modified to the extent that the surviving petitioners are sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone, subject to the payment of fine of Rs.2500/- each.

¶29

10 . It is made clear that petitioner Nos. 3, 4, 5 & 7 shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.2500/- each within a period of 4 months from today before the D.L.S.A., Hazaribagh, failing which they shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned courts below.

¶30

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

¶31

12. The surviving petitioners shall be discharged from the liability of their bail bonds, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.

¶32

13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below, Secretary, D.L.S.A., Hazaribagh and also to the surviving petitioners through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station.

¶33

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

¶34

Fahim /-

¶35

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

Most.Sobrani And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Most.Sobrani 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Choudhary Vs State of Jharkhand

Trilok Nath Choudhary Vs State of Jharkhand

Dharmendra Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Harendra Kumar Pandey Vs State of Jharkhand

Rajendar Kandu And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Mrs.Sawni Devi Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.