Pritam Kerketta, Son of Fransis Kerketta, Resident of Bangalwatand, P.S. – Sadar (Muffassil), P.O v. Coram: HON’BLE
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 555 of 2015 ------ Pritam Kerketta, Son of Fransis Kerketta, Resident of Bangalwatand, P.S. – Sadar (Muffassil), P.O. & District – Hazaribag. The State of Jharkhand .... …. Petitioner .... .... Opp. Party Versus ------ Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Petitioner For the State : Mr. Awnish Shankar, Advocate. : Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P. ------ ------ JUDGMENT CAV On Dated- 24.04.2024 Pronounced On 26.07.2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 09.02.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Hazaribag in Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the
Legal Reasoning
petitioner has been partly allowed by affirming the judgment of conviction and modifying the order of sentence dated 24.01.2012 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Hazaribag in connection with Sadar (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 473 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. No. 2173 of 2009, to the extent that the sentence awarded to the petitioner Page 1 of 6 was altered and reduced from three years to 2 years and 2 months only. 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the informant, who was aged about 16 years, alleged that for the last one and half year the petitioner was having physical and sexual relationship with her on the promise of marriage and when the informant became pregnant, the petitioner refused to marry with her. 4. On the basis of above written report, Sadar (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 473 of 2009 was registered under Section 376 of the I.P.C. 5. In terms of order dated 18.07.2009 passed by the learned CJM, Hazaribag the petitioner was declared juvenile and during enquiry, substance of accusation was explained to the petitioner under Section 376 / 420 of the I.P.C. to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be inquired. 6. During course of enquiry, the prosecution examined eight witnesses in this case and the juvenile denied the allegations in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 7. After conclusion of enquiry, the learned trial court found the present petitioner guilty for the offence under Page 2 of 6 Sections 376 and 417 of the I.P.C. and the juvenile was sent to the Special Home for a period of three years under Section 15(G) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. 8. The aforesaid final order of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial court has been challenged by the petitioner in Criminal Appeal No. 34/2013 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Hazaribag and the appellate court has affirmed the conviction but modified the order of sentence to the extent that the sentence awarded to the appellant is altered and reduced to the extent of 02 years and 02 months only instead of 03 years, which has been assailed in this revision by the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, without touching the merits of the judgments of concerned trial court and the appellate court, has confined himself to the point of quantum of sentence. It is submitted that out of two years and two months’ imprisonment awarded to the petitioner, he has already undergone nine months’ imprisonment during course of enquiry and during pendency of the appeal and this revision. Page 3 of 6 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has no criminal background. The victim has also been settled in her life and the petitioner is also leading a peaceful life in righteous manner, as such, the petitioner has been adequately punished for the offences committed by him. Under such circumstances, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by him in custody. 11. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor have raised no objection as regard to aforesaid contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that on merits, the revision is fit to be dismissed, but so far modification in sentence is concerned, in the factual aspect of the case, appropriate order may be passed. 12. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court as well as appellate court. It appears that there is concurrent findings of both the courts below that the prosecution has been able to conclusively prove the guilt of petitioner for the offence under Sections 376 Page 4 of 6 and 417 of the I.P.C. and there is direct evidence against him that he had made physical relation with the victim by making false promise to marry and when the victim became pregnant, the petitioner refused to marry with her. The findings of the courts below appear to be correct, legal and proper, requiring no interference on merits by way of this revision. 13. So far sentence awarded to the petitioner is concerned, admittedly out of two year and two months rigorous imprisonment, he has sustained substantial part of the imprisonment to the extent of nine months during course of enquiry and during pendency of the appeal and this revision. 14. It appears that the occurrence is of the year 2009 for commission of alleged rape with the victim on promise of marriage. The petitioner has been held guilty and sent to the Special Home for the period of 03 years under Section 15 (G) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Thereafter, on appeal, the conviction was affirmed, but the sentence was modified to the extent that the sentence awarded to the petitioner was reduced to the extent of 02 years and 02 months. The petitioner has already spent nine months in the Special Home during enquiry. Page 5 of 6 15. The Social Investigation Report of the petitioner has also been obtained, indicating the social reputation of the petitioner. 16. Under the aforementioned circumstances, in the interest of rehabilitation and reformation of the petitioner, the imprisonment already undergone appears to be sufficient punishment for the offence committed by him. 17. In view of the above discussions and reasons, this revision is dismissed on merits, but with modification in sentence to the extent mentioned above i.e. petitioner is sentenced to go imprisonment for the period already undergone. 18. Petitioner is on bail, as such, he shall be discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties shall also be discharged. 19. Let the copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to the concerned court forthwith. Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 26/07/2024 Sunil/-NAFR