Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 682 (JHR)

Prabhu Oraon v. State of Jharkhand

2022-06-17

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2022
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These revision applications are directed against the judgment dated 25.8.2004 passed by learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Gumla in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 1999; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.3.1999 passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Gumla, corresponding to G.R.No.282 of 1993, T.R.No.413/99; whereby the petitioners were convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I for 1 year each for the offence under Section 420/120B IPC with a fine of Rs.2000/- each and in default of fine to undergo R.I. further for a period of Six months; has been affirmed and the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed. 3. Pursuant to the order dated 30.3.2022 a report has been received indicating therein that petitioner No.1- Prabhu Oraon died on 26.2.2022. In view of the aforesaid fact, the instant criminal revision application, is hereby, dismissed as abated against petitioner No.1- Prabhu Oraon. 4. Ms. J.K.Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner (in Cr. Rev. No.705 of 2009) and Mr. K.S. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioners (in Cr. Rev. No.1050 of 2004) submits that though initially petitioners were charged for impersonation also, however in view of paragraph No.15 of the trial court judgment it is clear that no offence of impersonation is made out and since the properties were delivered to the beneficiaries after a long gap therefore they have been convicted under Section 420/120B of the IPC. They further submit that all the beneficiaries have admitted that they have received the cattles/cash as per the policy, however the same was received by them belatedly. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are now aged persons; as such they are confining their prayer only on the question of sentence as sending them back to jail at this stage even for short period will hamper the entire family; as such some leniency may be granted by modifying the sentence for the period already undergone. 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 such, the conviction cannot be set aside, however the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine. 6. 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 such, the conviction cannot be set aside, however the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine. 6. After going through the impugned judgment including the lower court records and keeping in mind the limited submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the scope of revision 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. 7. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1993 and about 29 years have elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 29 years. It is not stated that the petitioners have ever misused the privilege of bail. Further, the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part of the petitioners or any mental depravity and the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 (in Cr. Rev. No.1050/2004) and petitioner in Cr. Rev. No.705/2009 remained in custody for 15 days and 18 days respectively. 8. In a situation of this nature and looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners/convicts back to prison; rather interest of justice would be sufficed if the sentence is modified for the period already undergone. 9. Thus, the sentence passed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court is, hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioners are sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone. 10. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision application is disposed of. 11. The petitioners shall be discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. 12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below and also to the petitioners through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station. 13. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.