1. Sri Devendra Nath Singh 2. Sri Narayan Soren The State of Jharkhand v. CORAM: HON’BLE
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 95 of 2018 ------ 1. Sri Devendra Nath Singh 2. Sri Narayan Soren The State of Jharkhand .... ... Petitioners … … Opposite Party Versus ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Petitioners For the State -------- : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P. -------- Judgement Dated: 22nd February, 2024
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgement and order dated 11.01.2018 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj in Cr. Appeal No. 08 of 2017, whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgement of conviction and sentence and order of sentence dated 04.03.2017 passed by the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj in connection with Railway Act Case No. 190 of 2013 (T.R. No. 29/17) whereby and where under the petitioners have been convicted under Section 174(a) of Railways Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 174(a) Railways Act. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 27.02.2013 at about 07:00 hours, about five thousand people under the leadership of accused Meera Tudu (Mukhiya, Saliya Gram Panchayat), Narayan Soren (Mukhiya, Tarkutta Gram Panchayat) and Devendra Nath Singh (representative of M.P. for Podaiyahat block) gathered on the railway track at K.M. No. 62/6-7 between Pandey Tola and Kamradol halt demanding for a railway halt at Salaiya. At about 07:53 hours train No. 53441 Up Hansdiha-Bhagalpur passenger arrived and detained till 08:25 hours there. They also submitted a memorandum regarding their demands. Station Manager Hansdiha Railway Station submitted a written complaint to the Inspector-in-charge, RPF/POST/BGP on the basis of which Case No. 106/13 dated 28.02.2013 -2- Cr. Revision No. 95 of 2018 was registered under Section 174 (a) Railways Act. After completing enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted the Prosecution Report dated 06.05.2014 under Section 174 (a) Railway Act against the accused persons. Vide order dated 28.08.2014 the cognizance of offence was taken under Section 174 (a) Railways Act against accused Meera Tudu, Devendra Nath Singh & Narayan Soren. Vide order dated 06.02.2014, the substance of accusation under Section 174 (a) Railways Act was explained to the accused persons in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The learned Trial Court, after conducting the trial passed the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.03.2017 by which these petitioners were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 174(a) of the Railways Act 1989 and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for period of one year. The petitioner after being convicted and sentenced by the learned Trial Court under Section 174(a) of the Railways Act had preferred the Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2017 before the learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj, who had dismissed the appeal by the judgement dated 11.01.2018 by which the judgement of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court was upheld and thereafter this Criminal Revision Application has been preferred. Arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners- 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that originally there were three petitioners but during the pendency of this Criminal Revision Application, petitioner No. 1, Smt. Meera Tudu died and her name has been deleted from the cause title of this revision application. Now rest of the two petitioners namely; Sri Devendra Nath Singh and Sri Narayan Soren do not want to argue this case on merit and therefore, the argument is confined only on the point of sentence. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the said occurrence has taken place about 11 years ago in the year 2013 and there was a mob of several persons where these two petitioners have also been named who had gathered on the railway track demanding for railway halt at the station Salaiya between Pandeytola and Kamradol Stations of the train No. 53441 Up- Hansdiha- Bhagalpur passenger. -3- Cr. Revision No. 95 of 2018 7. It has been pointed out that these two petitioners have not been specifically identified by anyone of the witness and there name has appeared in this case only on the memorandum which was presented by the agitators. Further, it has been pointed out that there is nothing on the record to show about their criminal history and they have been suffering the hardship and rigour of the criminal case since last 11 years and they have also remained in jail for few days and therefore, it is urged on behalf of the petitioners that after upholding the judgement of conviction the order of sentence may be suitably modified as the petitioners are ready to pay a reasonable fine amount. Arguments advanced on behalf of the State- 08. On the other hand the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that both the Courts below including the learned Trial Court of /Railway Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj and the learned Appellate Court i.e. the Court of Sessions Judge, Sahibganj, have found both the petitioners guilty for the offence punishable under Section 174(a) of the Railways Act and both were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 174(a) of the Railways Act and there is no illegality in the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence to interfere with and therefore, this Criminal Revision is fit to be dismissed being devoid of merit. 09. Learned A.P.P. further submitted that since the petitioners do not want to argue this case on merit and therefore, let the conviction be confirmed passed by the learned Courts below for the offence punishable under Section 174(a) of the Railways Act 1989 and under the circumstances of this case a suitable order for modification in sentence may be passed in view of the fact that there is no criminal history against the petitioners as per the record. Appraisal & Findings 10. Having heard the parties, perused the records of this case including the Lower Court Records. 11. It is found that both the petitioners have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 174(a) of the Railways Act and they have -4- Cr. Revision No. 95 of 2018 been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year in connection with Railways Act Case No. 190 of 2013, corresponding to T.R. No. 29/17. 12. Since the petitioners do not want to argue this case on the point of judgement of conviction and therefore, this Court upholds both the petitioners guilty for the offence punishable under Section 174(a) of the Railways Act and upholds the judgement of conviction dated 04.03.2012 passed by Railway Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj and Judgment dated 11.01.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj. 13. So far as sentence is concerned it is found that it is a matter related to the year 2013 i.e. about 11 years ago and both the petitioners have been suffering the trauma and misery of the criminal case for a long time. Further, it is also found that both the petitioners have also remained in jail for few days and there is nothing on record to show about their criminal history. 14. In this view of the matter, it is found just and fair that no useful purpose would be served to send the petitioners again in jail and the purpose of justice would be meted out if they are sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by them and further they are sentenced to a suitable amount of fine. 15. Accordingly, the order of sentence dated 04.03.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court is hereby set aside and the same is modified to the extent that both the petitioners are sentenced to imprisonment to the term of period already undergone by them and further they are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 174(a) of the Railways Act. 16. Since both the petitioners are on bail and therefore, two months’ time is allowed to the petitioners to deposit the aforesaid fine amount and in default of payment of fine each of petitioners is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. The petitioners may deposit the fine amount in the concerned Court of Railway Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj. 17. The learned trial court is directed to ensure that the said fine amount is deposited within the stipulated period of time and if the same is not -5- Cr. Revision No. 95 of 2018 deposited by the petitioners, then each of the petitioner will serve the sentence as awarded in case of default of payment of fine, by taking all necessary measures as per the provisions of law to ensure that the petitioners serve the sentence of imprisonment in case of default of payment of fine. 18. The petitioners may be allowed to deposit the said fine amount in the concerned Court of Railway Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj. At the moment the petitioners deposit the fine amount, they shall be released forthwith on deposit of the said fine amount and they shall be released and / discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. 19. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Application is dismissed, with modification in order of sentence as above. 20. Let the Lower Court Records and a copy of this judgement be also transmitted to the learned Court below for its compliance in letter and spirit. D.S./J.Minj (Navneet Kumar, J.)