Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 57 (JHR)

Purnendu Roy v. State of Jharkhand

2023-01-18

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2023
JUDGMENT : Heard leaned counsel for the parties. 2. At the outset it appears from the order dated 13.10.2022 that due to typographical error this case has been abated against the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 in place of petitioner nos. 1 and 3. 3. Accordingly order dated 13.10.2022 is hereby modified to the extent that the Cr. Rev. Application No. 1099 of 2008 is abated against the petitioner nos. 1 and 3-namely, Tusar Kanti Roy and Ardhendu Roy, respectively. 4. 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. 5. Both these applications have been preferred against the judgment dated 23.07.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara, in Cr. Appeal No. 09 of 2008; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.03.2008 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara in P.C.R. Case No. 46 of 2005 (T.R. No. 289 of 2008); whereby the petitioners have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 3000/- each for the offence under section 498 A IPC and appeal filed by the petitioners have been dismissed with modification in sentence. The learned appellate court reduced the sentence of petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 1099 of 2008 to S.I. for one year and further modified the sentence of petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 892 of 2008 R.I. for 2 years, and appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly confines his argument on the question of sentence on the ground that the instant case is of the year 2005 and about 18 years have elapsed since then and the petitioners (in both the cases) must have suffered the mental agony for ongoing litigation. He lastly submits that the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 892 of 2008 remained in custody for 60 days, surviving petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 1099 of 2008 remained in custody for about 13 days and have never misused the privilege of bail and they are not habitual offenders, as such some leniency may be granted by this Court and sentence may be modified to period already undergone. 7. Revision No. 1099 of 2008 remained in custody for about 13 days and have never misused the privilege of bail and they are not habitual offenders, as such some leniency may be granted by this Court and sentence may be modified to period already undergone. 7. Learned Addl.P.P. opposes the contention of the petitioners and submits that there is concurrent finding and as such, no interference is required. 8. After going through the impugned judgments including the lower court records and keeping in mind the limited 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 judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby, sustained. 9. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 2005 and 18 years have elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 18 years. The petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 892 of 2008 remained in custody for about 60 day, the surviving petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 1099 of 2008 remained in custody for about 13 days, and both the petitioner, in Cr. Rev No. 892 of 2008 is aged about 47 years and petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 1099 of 2008 is aged about 77 years, as such 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. 10. 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. 11. Thus, the sentence passed by the Court below is, hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioners (in both these criminal revisions) are sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone, subject to the payment of fine of Rs. 7,500/- each. 12. It is made clear that the respective petitioners shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs. 11. Thus, the sentence passed by the Court below is, hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioners (in both these criminal revisions) are sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone, subject to the payment of fine of Rs. 7,500/- each. 12. It is made clear that the respective petitioners shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs. 7,500/- each (in both these criminal revisions) within a period of 4 months from today before the D.L.S.A, Jamtara failing which they shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned court below. 13. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence only, these criminal revision applications stand disposed of. 14. The petitioners (in both these cases) shall be discharged from the liability of their bail bonds subject to fulfilment of aforesaid condition. 15. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the courts below, Secretary, D.L.S.A, Jamtara and also to the petitioners (in both the cases) through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station. 16. Let the lower court record be sent (in both the cases) to the court concerned forthwith.