Partly allowed

Baijnath Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Jan 2023Cr.Rev./988/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Jharkhand affirmed a conviction under Section 304A/279 IPC but modified the sentence. After 19 years of litigation with 118 days in custody, the Court held sending the petitioner back to jail was unnecessary. Sentence replaced with immediate payment of a fine of Rs. 10,000.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to immediate payment of fine of Rs. 10,000 within 4 months; otherwise, remaining sentence to be served. Bail bonds discharged.

Baijnath Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 988 of 2010

¶3

Baijnath Prasad ….. …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. ….. ….Opposite Party CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------For the Petitioner :Mr. Birendra Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party-State :Mr. Gautam Rakesh, APP

¶4

05/18.01.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶5

2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 03.09.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge cum FTC-I, Hazaribagh in Criminal Appeal No.55 of 2009; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.3.2009 passed by the learned J.M., Ist Class, Hazaribag, in G.R. case no.165/04, T.R. No.848/2009; whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 279/304A IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of one year & six months for the offence under Section 304-A of the IPC and S.I. for three months for the offence under Section 279 IPC and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently ; has been affirmed and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

¶6

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer for modifying the sentence as the case is of the year 2004. He further submits that the petitioner has faced the rigors of litigation for last 19 years and he also remained in custody for about 118 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.

¶7

4. 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.

¶8

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.

¶9

¶10

6. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 2004 and about 19 years have elapsed and the petitioner must has suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 19 years. It is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail and he also remained in custody for about 118 days.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.10,000/-.

¶13

9 . 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., Hazaribag, failing which he shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned courts below.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶19

Fahim/-

Baijnath Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baijnath Prasad 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

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

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

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

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

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