Partly allowed

Charan Tudu And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC18 Jan 2023Cr.Rev./774/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the revision application abated against two deceased petitioners. Regarding the surviving petitioner, the court sustained the conviction but modified the sentence to a fine of Rs. 10,000, subject to payment within four months; otherwise, the unspent sentence term applies.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to Rs. 10,000 fine payable in 4 months; rest of sentence to be served if fine not paid. Bail bonds discharged.

Charan Tudu And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 774 of 2011

¶3

Charan Tudu

¶4

Hopna Tudu

¶5

Raska Tudu

¶6

The State of Jharkhand.

¶7

Raghunandan Marandi

¶8

….. ….Opposite Parties

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶10

¶11

For the Petitioner :Mr. Om Prakash, Adv. For the Opposite Party-State :Mr. B. Shastri, APP

¶12

10/18.01.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 25.07.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj in Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2009; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5.9.2009 passed by the learned J.M, Ist Class, Sahibganj, in P.C.R No.199/98 corresponding to T.R. no.137/09; whereby the petitioners were convicted for the offence under 148 & 379 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of two years for the offence under Section 148 IPC and R.I. for two years under Section 379 IPC and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently; has been affirmed and the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed.

¶14

3. As per service report, petitioner no.1-Charan Tudu and petitioner no.2 -Hopna Tudu have died. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision application is hereby dismissed as abated against petitioner no.1Charan Tudu and petitioner no.2 -Hopna Tudu and this application is being heard only for petitioner no.3-Raska Tudu.

¶15

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner no.3 fairly submits that case is civil in nature as the occurrence took place due to land dispute. Further he confines his prayer for modifying the sentence for the period already undergone as the case is of the year 1998. He further submits that the surviving petitioner has faced the rigors of litigation for last 25 years and he also remained in custody for about 92 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.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

such, the conviction cannot be set aside, however the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.

¶19

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.

¶20

7. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1998 and about 25 years have elapsed and the petitioner must has suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 25 years. It is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail and he also remained in custody for about 92 days.

¶21

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 in lieu of fine.

¶22

9. Thus, the sentence passed by the trial court and modified by the appellate court is, hereby, further modified to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone, subject to the payment of fine of Rs.10,000/-.

¶23

10 . It is made clear that petitioner shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.10,000/- within a period of 4 months from today before the D.L.S.A., Sahibganj, failing which he shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned courts below.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶29

Fahim /-

Charan Tudu And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charan Tudu And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

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

MD Hanifuddin Alias Hanif Ansari Alias Hanifuddin Vs the State of Jharkhand

Panchu Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sk.Shahid Ali And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Dasrath Bhuinya Vs State of Jharkhand

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

Baijnath Prasad 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

MD Hanifuddin Alias Hanif Ansari Alias Hanifuddin Vs the State of Jharkhand

Panchu Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sk.Shahid Ali And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Dasrath Bhuinya Vs State of Jharkhand

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

Baijnath Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand

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