Disposed¶10

Gopal Hembrom v. the State of Jharkhand

Criminal Revision (Jharkhand) – Sentence

Jharkhand HC21 Jun 2024Cr.Rev./793/2022

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sentence reduction; imprisonment limited to period already undergone; leniency; seizure of one cartridge; conscious physical possession; no past conviction; Arms Act Section 25(1-b)a; Arms Act Section 26/35; sureties discharged; Cr. Revision No. 793 of 2022; Gopal Hembrom v. State of Jharkhand; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.; 21.06.2024; Sessions Judge Seraikella-Kharsawan; Cr. Appeal No.19 of 2016.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to imprisonment for the period already undergone; sureties discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. ¶10

Gopal Hembrom Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 793 of 2022

¶3

Gopal Hembrom .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand .. ... ...Opp. Party(s)

¶4

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶5

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. C. P. Sah, Advocate For the State : Ms. Shweta Singh, APP

¶6

…... 09/ 21.06.2024 . Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

1. The instant Cr. Revision has been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence both dated 25.05.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, SeraikellaKharsawan, in Cr. Appeal No.19 of 2016 (CNR No.JHSK010006092016) whereby and where under learned Sessions Judge has affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella and the petitioner has been convicted under Section 25(1-b)a read with Section 26/35 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 25(1-b)a of the Arms Act and further sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year with fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 26/35 of the Arms Act and in default, to further undergo SI for one month.

¶8

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his argument on the point of sentence. It is submitted that the matter involves seizure of one cartridge from the conscious physical possession of the petitioner and that he has already undergone more than six months of imprisonment. There is no material which suggests that there is any past conviction of this petitioner. As such, petitioner deserves leniency on the point of sentence.

¶9

3. Learned APP for the State has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.

¶10

4. Having considered the submissions of both the sides and the materials on record, the sentence of imprisonment for the period already undergone by the petitioner will serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the sureties are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.

¶11

With the modification of the sentence, the instant Cr. Revision stands disposed of.

¶12

Let the LCR along with a copy of the judgment be sent to concerned Trial Court at once.

¶13

( Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. )

¶14

Sandeep/

¶15

Uploaded.

Gopal Hembrom v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Hembrom v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sher Singh And Ors. Vs Nageshwar Bhagat And Ors.

Alpana Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Wasim Raja Alias Wasim Raza Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shiv Shankar Choudhary Alias Sheo Shankar Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand

Firoz Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raja Das Vs the State of Jharkhand