Disposed

Lakhan Prasad Soni v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC20 Jan 2023Cr.Rev./464/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision against a conviction forSections 324/147 IPC upheld after 36 years, the High Court modified the sentence to expire upon the petitioner's release, recognizing that re-imprisonment would offer no fruitful purpose and that the petitioner had suffered enough due to lingering litigation and age.

What did the court decide?

The sentence was modified to run for the period already undergone, and the petitioner was discharged from the liability of the bail bond.

Lakhan Prasad Soni Vs State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No.464 of 2007

¶2

¶3

Lakhan Prasad Soni @ Lakhan Sonar

¶4

Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶6

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Verma, Amicus For the Opp. Party : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P.

¶8

06/20.01.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

2. This criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 20.12.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Hazaribagh in Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 1990, dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 25.07.1990 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Hazaribagh in G.R. Case No. 1170 of 1987, corresponding to T.R. No. 307 of 1990, whereby the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and half years for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for six months u/s 147 of the I.P.C. and further all the sentences were directed to run concurrently

¶10

3. The prosecution case, as per the informant, in brief is that on 16.06.1987, the petitioner and his family abused and assaulted the informant and his family with Lathi and Bhujali .

¶11

4. At the outset, Mr. Ashish Verma, learned Amicus, appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not a habitual offender and he remained in custody for about 100 days. As such, he has confined his prayer only on the question of sentence as the occurrence is of the year 1987 and the petitioner is now 60 years old and sending him back to jail at this stage even for a short period will hamper the entire family; as such the sentence may be modified for the period already undergone.

¶12

-2-

¶13

5. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment and submits that there is no error in the finding given by the Trial Court. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside.

¶14

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 findings of the court below and as such the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby, sustained.

¶15

7. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1987 and 36 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for all these years. It is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail. Further, the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part of the petitioner or any mental depravity and he also remained in custody for about 100 days.

¶16

8. 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.

¶17

9. Thus, the sentence passed by the court below is hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone.

¶18

10. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bond.

¶19

11. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee shall reimburse the learned Amicus on submission of bills, Rs. 5,000/- per hearing, as professional fee subject to the maximum ceiling as per the existing guidelines.

¶20

-3-

¶21

12. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee, courts below and also to the petitioner through the officer-incharge of concerned police station.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶25

sm/

Lakhan Prasad Soni v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhan Prasad Soni 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

Santosh Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Benjamin Horo Vs State of Jharkhand

Chandan Kumar Mishra Vs State of Jharkhand

Surjeet Sao Vs State of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Sahu Alias Anil Sao Vs State of Jharkhand

Raj Kumar Marwah Vs State of Jharkhand