Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1619 (JHR)

Thulu Karamkar v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-09-13

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT Deepak Roshan, J. - The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 16.05.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2012 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners has been modified to the extent that the conviction under Section 411 of IPC has been confirmed and the sentence has been modified from 2 years RI to SI of one year. 2. The learned trial court after appreciating the evidences of the prosecution as well as of defense, came to the conclusion that the petitioners are guilty for the charge under Section 414 IPC and accordingly sentenced them to undergo RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- each. It was further directed that in default of payment of fine, they shall serve the sentence for additional 2 months. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no report of theft by any corner and as such, it has not been proved that the articles were stolen property. He further submits that the profession of the petitioners is to manufacture the aluminium utensils and as such, recovery of aluminium wire with them is very natural. He further submits that both the courts below failed to take into consideration that the seizure list witness has categorically admitted that their signature had been taken on a plain paper. As such, this is a fit case where relief should be granted to the petitioners. 4. Per contra, the learned APP opposes such prayer and submitted that there is concurrent finding of both the courts below and this practice is rampant in the area as such no relief should be granted. 5. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material available on record including the lower court record. It has been stated by the counsel for the petitioner that petitioner no.1 is aged about 63 years whereas petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are aged about 44 years and 41 years respectively. It has also been stated that the petitioners have undergone custody for about 5 months. 6. It has been stated by the counsel for the petitioner that petitioner no.1 is aged about 63 years whereas petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are aged about 44 years and 41 years respectively. It has also been stated that the petitioners have undergone custody for about 5 months. 6. In this view of the matter, looking to the fact that the case is pending since 2004 and certainly in the last 15 years, the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of litigation and also remained in custody for considerable time and never misused the privilege of bail granted to them as such, I am of the considered opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in sending the petitioners back to prison. In this way, I find that it is expedient in the interest of justice that the sentence already undergone will suffice for the ends of justice for the alleged offence. Thus, the sentence modified by the learned appellate court are hereby further modified to the extent that the petitioners are sentenced to undergo for a period already undergone, subject to the payment of fine Rs.2,000/- each. 7. It is made clear that the fine of Rs.2,000/- each shall be paid within two months from today, failing which, the petitioners shall serve the rest sentence as awarded by the trial court which has been modified by the learned appellate court. 8. It appears from the record of this case that the petitioners have already availed the privilege of bail and as such, they are discharged from the liability of the bail bonds. 9. With the aforesaid modification in sentence only, the instant revision application is dismissed. 10. Let the lower court record be sent to the concerned court forthwith.