Partly allowed

Chandan Kumar Mishra v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC19 Jan 2023Cr.Rev./534/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision single judge case, the court upheld the conviction under Section 411 IPC but commuted the remaining sentence to a fine of Rs. 7,500 given the 17-year delay and submission of rigors of litigation.

What did the court decide?

Sentence to imprisonment for already undergone period commuted to fine of Rs. 7,500 payable in 4 months. Convict discharged from bail bonds.

Chandan Kumar Mishra Vs State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 534 of 2010

¶3

Chandan Kumar Mishra ….. …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. ….. ….Opposite Party

¶4

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶5

------For the Petitioner :Mr. Vijay Shankar Pd., Adv. For the Opposite Party-State :Mr. P.D. Agrawal, APP

¶6

07/19.01.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 22.01.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No.243 of 2009; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.09.2009 passed by the learned J.M, 1^st Class, Jamshedpur, in G.R. case no.3010/2006, T.R. No.626 of 2009; whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 411 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 2006. He further submits that the petitioner has faced the rigors of litigation for last 17 years and he also remained in custody for about 256 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 but he fairly admits that there is no criminal antecedent of the petitioner. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside, however the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.

¶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 2006 and about 17 years have elapsed

¶12

¶13

and the petitioner must has suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 17 years. It is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail and he also remained in custody for about 256 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., Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum 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., Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum and also to the petitioner through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station.

¶20

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

¶21

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶22

Fahim/-

Chandan Kumar Mishra v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan Kumar Mishra 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

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

Amarjit Singh Pappu 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

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

Amarjit Singh  Pappu Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

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

Amarjit Singh Pappu Singh Vs State of Jharkhand