Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 196 (JHR)

Alok Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

2023-02-20

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2023
JUDGMENT : [Deepak Roshan, J.] 1. Heard leaned counsel for the parties. 2. Since both these revision applications arise out of same judgment passed by the appellate court and are also interconnected with the same P.S. case, as such they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Both these applications have been preferred against the common judgment dated 01.10.2009 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner (F.T.C. No. VI), Ranchi, in Cr. Appeal No. 146 of 2009/137 of 2009; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.07.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, in G.R. Case No. 1859 of 2008 (T.R. No. 590 of 2009); whereby the petitioners have been convicted for the offence under Sections 387/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and fine of Rs. 2000/- each, and in default in payment of fine further 6 months R.I., has been affirmed and appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the respective petitioners fairly confines his argument on the question of sentence on the ground that the instant case is of the year of 2008 and about 15 years have elapsed since then and the petitioner (in both the cases) must have suffered the mental agony for ongoing litigation. He further submits that the petitioners (in both the cases) have never misused the privilege of bail and they are not habitual offenders, now they are middle aged person and petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 1009 of 2009 remained in custody for about 706 days and petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 884 of 2009 also remained in custody for about 527 days, as such some leniency may be granted by this Court and sentence may be modified to period already undergone. 5. Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the contention of the petitioners and submits that there is concurrent finding and as such, no interference is required. Learned counsel for the informant fairly submits that the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine and the amount may be directed to be paid to the informant. 6. 5. Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the contention of the petitioners and submits that there is concurrent finding and as such, no interference is required. Learned counsel for the informant fairly submits that the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine and the amount may be directed to be paid to the informant. 6. After going through the impugned judgments including the lower court records and keeping in mind the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the scope of revisional jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of the courts below and as such the judgments 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 2008 and 15 years have elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 15 years. The petitioner in Cr. Rev No. 1009 of 2009 remained in custody for about 706 days and petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 884 of 2009 also remained in custody for about 527 days, and now both are middle aged persons and sending them back to prison at this stage will hamper their entire family. Further, it is not stated that the petitioners have ever misused the privilege of bail. In addition, the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part of the petitioners or any mental depravity. 8. In a situation of this nature, 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 in lieu of fine. 9. Thus, the sentence passed by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate court is, hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioners of respective application are sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone, subject to the payment of fine of Rs. 20,000/- each. 10. It is made clear that the petitioner (in both application) shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs. 20,000/- each within a period of 4 months from today before the trial court; failing which they shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned court below. Thereafter, the court below after proper verification shall pay the same to the informant. 20,000/- each within a period of 4 months from today before the trial court; failing which they shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned court below. Thereafter, the court below after proper verification shall pay the same to the informant. 11. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence/fine only, these criminal revision applications stand disposed of. 12. The petitioners (in both cases) shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bond subject to fulfilment of aforesaid condition. 13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the courts below and to the petitioners (in both cases) through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station. 14. Let the lower court record of this case be sent to the court concerned forthwith.