Partly allowed¶27

Tadyus Purty v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Jul 2025Cr.Rev./875/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sentence modification to period already undergone in criminal revision; conviction affirmed under Sections 449/307 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act; FIR under Sections 147/148/149/449/452/307 IPC, Section 27 Arms Act and Section 13 UAP Act; custody report Central Jail Ghaghidih, Jamshedpur; 5 years 6 months 6 days undergone; over 14 years of trial; sole bread-winner; clean verification report Bandgaon Police Station; fine Rs. 2,500 deposited to Nazir; ends of justice; Sessions Judge Chaibasa; Criminal Appeal No.81 of 2014; Sessions Trial No.175 of 2015 (ST No.175 of 2010); Arun Kumar Rai, J.; Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.

What did the court decide?

Conviction affirmed; sentence modified to the period already undergone (5 years, 6 months and 6 days); Criminal Revision partly allowed and disposed of. ¶27

Tadyus Purty Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Conviction affirmed; sentence modified to the period already undergone (5 years, 6 months and 6 days); Criminal Revision partly allowed and disposed of.

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner (convicted under Sections 449/307 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act, as affirmed in appeal) should be modified to the period already undergone, given the custody already served and his family circumstances.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the petitioner by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No.175 of 2010 (affirmed in Criminal Appeal No.81 of 2014) is modified and the petitioner is sentenced to the period already undergone.

¶25

Key takeaways

The judgment of conviction of the petitioner is affirmed, but the sentence is modified as stated above, i.e., to the period already undergone.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Arun Kumar Rai, J.), Criminal Revision No. 875 of 2015, decided 16th July, 2025: Revision against the judgment dated 10.03.2015 of the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No.81 of 2014, affirming the petitioner's conviction under Sections 449/307 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act (Sessions Trial No.175 of 2010; sentence of R.I. 7 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- on each count under Sections 449 and 307 IPC, and R.I. 4 years and fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 27 Arms Act). The challenge was confined to sentence. Relying on the custody report dated 09.10.2024 (Central Jail, Ghaghidih, Jamshedpur) showing 5 years, 6 months and 6 days already undergone, a Bandgaon Police Station verification report indicating no involvement in criminal activity, over 14 years of trial, and the petitioner being the sole bread-winner of a family comprising his parents and children, the Court held that ends of justice would be met by modifying the sentence to the period already undergone, while affirming the conviction; fine of Rs. 2,500/- was shown deposited to the Nazir. Revision partly allowed and disposed of; trial court record to be sent back.

¶1

2025:JHHC:19318

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Criminal Revision No. 875 of 2015

¶4

Tadyus Purty, Son of Gabrial Purty, Resident of Village: Srijan, P.O. & P.S.: Bandgaon, District: West Singhbhum. … Petitioner

¶5

Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ----------

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate For the State :

¶7

---------

¶8

Order No.17/ Dated 16^th July, 2025

¶9

1. This revision is filed against the judgment dated 10^th March, 2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No.81 of 2014 whereby and whereunder, judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.07.2014 passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No.175 of 2010 has been affirmed and the appellant has been held guilty for the offences under Sections 449 /307 of IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act.

¶10

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/revisionist is present before this Court and submitted that petitioner confined his prayer in the present appeal only to the extent of sentence only by assailing the impugned judgment dated 09.07.2014 passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No.175 of 2010, whereby and whereunder petitioner found guilty under Sections 449/307 of IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 449 of IPC and also R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and further, sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years and fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 27 of Arms Act. In default of payment of fine on each Rs. 1000/-, convict shall be served further R.I. for 4 months and for Rs. 500/-, convict shall be served further R.I. for 2 months which would run alternatively and the said judgment is affirmed by the learned appellate court in Criminal Appeal No.81 of 2014 vide order dated 10^th March, 2015.

¶11

2025:JHHC:19318

¶12

3. Learned counsel submitted that out of maximum sentence awarded to the petitioner, he has already spent more than 5 years and 6 months in the custody.

¶13

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/revisionist has further handed over the receipt dated 11.07.2025 in the Court, showing deposit of fine amount of Rs. 2,500/- to the Nazir which has been imposed by learned Trial Court. Same is taken on record.

¶14

5. He further submitted that petitioner is an agriculturist and having two children and apart from that, he has also to look after his parents, as he is the only son after the death of his brother.

¶15

6. Upon aforesaid premise, prayer has been made that the sentence awarded to the petitioner be modified to the period already undergone.

¶16

7. From perusal of record, it transpires that on 22.02.2010, petitioner along with other co-accused persons entered into the house of informant and in solar light, informant found that the PLF extremists, namely, Mani Singh, Chamru Singh, Digri Singh, Barka Purty and Tadyus Purty (petitioner herein) entered into the house and the informant was asked why does he work as a middle man for the police and upon answering, the petitioner fired bullet on him by a country-made pistol which struck on his chest and informant fell down on the ground, blood started oozing out and the accused persons after threatening the nearby people fired 2-3 rounds in the air and fled away. Then, the informant was taken to nearby Bandgaon hospital and the police patrolling party met them at the Church More in the morning at about 3.30 A.M. on 23.02.2010 and the statement of informant was recorded by the police. Thereafter, an FIR was registered under Sections 147/148/149/449/452/307 of IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act and Section 13 of UAP Act and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted.

¶17

8. After appreciation of evidence, learned Assistant Sessions Judge found petitioner guilty under Sections 449 /307 of IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 449 of IPC and also R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and further,

¶18

¶19

2025:JHHC:19318

¶20

sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years and fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 27 of Arms Act vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.07.2014.

¶21

9. Against the judgment dated 09.07.2014, the petitioner preferred an appeal, being Criminal Appeal No.81 of 2014 before Sessions Judge, but same was dismissed vide judgment dated 10^th March, 2015.

¶22

10. This Court has called for the custody report from the Central Jail, Ghaghidih, Jamshedpur and report dated 09.10.2024 has been received, which reveals that petitioner has already undergone 5 years, 6 months and 6 days in the present case.

¶23

11. Even, one verification report is also available on record which reveals that the petitioner is not involved in any criminal activity and this verification report has been issued by Bandgaon Police Station, Chaibasa.

¶24

12. This Court finds that the petitioner has faced agony of trial for more than 14 years and he is only the bread winner of the family which also comprises his parents and petitioner has already remained in custody for 5 years, 6 months and 6 days out of the sentence imposed by learned Trial Court.

¶25

13. Therefore, this Court is of considered view that ends of justice would be met if sentence awarded to the petitioner by learned Assistant Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No.175 of 2010 vide order dated 09^th July, 2014 and affirmed by the learned appellate court in Criminal Appeal No.81 of 2014 vide order dated 10^th March, 2015 is modified and the petitioner is sentenced to period already undergone.

¶26

14. Consequently, this Court affirms the judgment of conviction of petitioner dated 10^th March, 2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No.81 of 2014, but modifying the sentence as stated above.

¶27

15. The instant Criminal Revision is partly allowed and disposed of, subject to above-said modification.

¶28

16. Let the trial court record be sent back to the court concerned.

¶29

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶30

Suman

¶31

Tadyus Purty v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tadyus Purty 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

Sahu Gagrai Vs the State of Jharkhand

M/S Sunder Transport Represented through Its Manager Vijay Singh Vs Smt.Seema Kaur And Ors.

Ramchandra Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner Koderma

Divisional Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Azamat Ara And Ors.

Shahnaz Begum Vs Mir Manjur Hussain

Kalim Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand